Notices. Notice of cancellation of April 24, 2007 public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities (EC) for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a result of EU enlargement
39,070 words·~178 min read·
/register/2007/04/24/07-2057A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.
(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 30, 2007 to April 12, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17944). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* ; or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* March 22, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to incorporate a revised limit for the variable low reactor coolant system pressure-temperature core protection safety limit. The revised limit is associated with the introduction of AREVA NP's Mark-B-HTP fuel design, which will require more restrictive Safety Limits and more restrictive Limiting Safety System Settings for the Reactor Protection System. The proposed limits are developed in accordance with the method described in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Topical Report BAW-10179P-A, “Safety Criteria and Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analyses.” The revised limits will maintain the same magnitude of departure from nucleate boiling
(DNB)protection. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed Technical Specification
(TS)limits and reactor protection system
(RPS)trip setpoints are developed in accordance with the methods and assumptions described in NRC-approved AREVA NP Topical Reports BAW-10179 P-A, “Safety Criteria and Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analyses” and BAW-10187 P-A, “Statistical Core Design for B&W-Designed 177 FA Plants.” The core thermal-hydraulic code (LYNXT) and CHF correlation
(BHTP)have been approved for use with these methods and the Mark-B-HTP fuel type. The proposed change preserves the design DNB Ratio safety criterion that there shall be at least a 95% [percent] probability at a 95% confidence level that the hot fuel rod in the core does not experience a departure from nucleate boiling during normal operation or events of moderate frequency. The corresponding core-wide protection on a pin-by-pin basis is greater than 99.9%. The margin retained for penalties such as transition core effects, by imposing a Thermal Design Limit in all DNB analyses supporting the proposed change, has been shown to be sufficient to offset the mixed core conditions at TMI Unit 1, where the Mark-B-HTP fuel design will be co-resident with earlier Mark-B fuel designs. The setpoint calculation methodology utilized, and the surveillance requirements established, are in accordance with approved industry standards and NRC criteria. The proposed setpoint change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed change does not alter any assumptions previously made in the radiological consequence evaluations, or affect mitigation of the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed TS limit and reactor protection system
(RPS)trip setpoint provide a core protection safety limit and variable low pressure trip setpoint developed in accordance with NRC-approved methods and assumptions. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms or single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All systems, structures, and components previously required for the mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended design function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed RPS trip setpoint ensures core protection safety limits will be preserved during power operation. The proposed safety limit and setpoint are developed in accordance with NRC-approved methods and assumptions. The margin retained for penalties such as transition core effects, by imposing a Thermal Design Limit in all DNB analyses supporting the proposed change, has been shown to be sufficient to offset the mixed core conditions at TMI Unit 1. The setpoint calculation methodology utilized, and the surveillance requirements established, are in accordance with approved industry standards and NRC criteria. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket No. 50-317, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of amendment request:* February 27, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed license amendment would revise Technical Specification 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, to add a temporary exemption to allow the insertion of up to four lead fuel assemblies, which contain non-Zircaloy based cladding, into the Unit 1 core for one cycle of operation. These lead fuel assemblies are currently installed in the Unit 2 core under a previous exemption and are scheduled to be discharged during the 2007 refueling outage. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below. The licensee has determined that the proposed change: 1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Calvert Cliffs Technical Specification 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, states that fuel rods are clad with either Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM . Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. proposes to re-insert up to four fuel assemblies into Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 that have some fuel rods clad in zirconium alloys that do not meet the definition of Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM . A temporary exemption to the regulations has been requested to allow these fuel assemblies to be re-inserted into Unit 1. The proposed change to the Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications will allow the use of cladding materials that are not Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM for one fuel cycle once the temporary exemption is approved. The proposed change to the Technical Specification is effective only as long as the temporary exemption is effective. The addition of what will be an approved temporary exemption for Unit 1 to Technical Specification 4.2.1 does not change the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not add any new equipment, modify any interfaces with existing equipment, change the equipment's function, or change the method of operating the equipment. The proposed change does not affect normal plant operations or configuration. Since the proposed change does not change the design, configuration, or operation, it could not become an accident initiator. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Would not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The proposed change will add an approved temporary exemption to the Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications allowing the installation of up to four lead fuel assemblies. The assemblies use advanced cladding materials that are not specifically permitted by existing regulations or Calvert Cliffs' Technical Specifications. A temporary exemption to allow the installation of these assemblies has been requested. The addition of an approved temporary exemption to Technical Specification 4.2.1 is an administrative change to allow the installation of the lead fuel assemblies under the provisions of the temporary exemption. The license amendment is effective only as long as the exemption is effective. This amendment does not change the margin of safety since it only adds a reference to an approved, temporary exemption to the Technical Specifications. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Carey Fleming, Esquire, Senior Counsel—Nuclear Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* John P. Boska. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of amendment request:* February 27, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed license amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), to add the supporting topical report (WCAP-15604-NP, Revision 2-A, “Limited Scope High Burnup Lead Test Assemblies,” September 2003) to the list of references. The topical report provides guidance for operation with a limited number of lead fuel assemblies to be irradiated to a higher burnup limit than currently allowed for Calvert Cliffs fuel assemblies. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below. The licensee has determined that the proposed change: 1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change would modify the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification 5.6.5.b, Core Operating Limits Report by adding an approved topical report to the existing list of topical reports. The topical report provides the technical basis that supports irradiating a limited number of lead fuel assemblies to a higher burnup limit than currently approved for Calvert Cliffs. The proposed change is administrative in nature and has no impact on any plant configurations or on system performance that is relied upon to mitigate the consequences of an accident. In the safety evaluation report approving the requested topical report (WCAP-15604-NP, Revision 2-A), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that it is acceptable for an individual power licensee to irradiate a limited number of lead fuel assemblies to a maximum burnup to 75 GWD/MTU [gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium] provided that certain conditions are met. Calvert Cliffs meets those required conditions. Because those required conditions are met and only a limited number of fuel assemblies are included in this change, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not add any new equipment, modify any interfaces with existing equipment, change the equipment's function, or change the method of operating the equipment. The proposed change does not affect normal plant operations or configuration. Since the proposed change does not change the plant design, operation, or configuration, it could not become an accident initiator. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change will add a reference to an approved topical report to allow a limited number of lead fuel assemblies to be irradiated to a higher burnup level than is currently allowed at Calvert Cliffs. The higher burnup limit has been evaluated and approved in the topical report being referenced. Calvert Cliffs conforms to the requirements of the topical report. The addition of an approved reference to the Technical Specifications is administrative in nature and has no impact on the margin of safety for any plant configuration or on system performance that is relied upon to mitigate the consequences on an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Carey Fleming, Esquire, Senior Counsel—Nuclear Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* John P. Boska. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* February 2, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment deletes requirements from the Technical Specifications
(TS)to maintain hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen monitors. Licensees were generally required to implement upgrades as described in NUREG-0737, “Clarification of Three Mile Island
(TMI)Action Plan Requirements,” and Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.97, “Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident.” Implementation of these upgrades was an outcome of the lessons learned from the accident that occurred at TMI, Unit 2. Requirements related to combustible gas control were imposed by Order for many facilities and were added to or included in the TS for nuclear power reactors currently licensed to operate. The revised Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.44, “Standards for Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,” eliminated the requirements for hydrogen recombiners and relaxed safety classifications and licensee commitments to certain design and qualification criteria for hydrogen and oxygen monitors. The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50374), on possible amendments to eliminate requirements regarding containment hydrogen recombiners and the removal of requirements from TS for containment hydrogen and oxygen monitors, including a model safety evaluation and model No Significant Hazards Consideration
(NSHC)Determination, in accordance with the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated February 2, 2007. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: *Criterion 1:* The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity. With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents. The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3 and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the severe accident management guidelines, the emergency plan, the emergency operating procedures, and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations. Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. *Criteria 2:* The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated. The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. *Criterion 3:* The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan *Date of amendment request:* March 19, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS)3.8.1 entitled “AC Sources-Operating” to change the minimum Emergency Diesel Generator
(EDG)output voltage acceptance criterion from 3740 to 3873 volts. Specifically, the proposed change would revise the Surveillance Requirements
(SRs)3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.14, and 3.8.1.17. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The increase in the minimum EDG output voltage acceptance criterion value in TS 3.8.1 surveillance requirements does not adversely affect any of the parameters in the accident analyses. The change increases the minimum allowed EDG output voltage acceptance criterion to ensure that sufficient voltage is available to operate the required Emergency Safety Feature
(ESF)equipment under accident conditions. The increase in the minimum allowed EDG output voltage in the TS surveillance requirements ensures that adequate voltage is available to support the assumptions made in the Design Bases Accident
(DBA)analyses. DBA analyses assume that onsite standby emergency power will provide an adequate power source to operate safe shutdown equipment and to mitigate consequences of design bases accidents. This conservative change of the acceptance criterion enhances the testing requirements of the onsite emergency diesel generators and ensures the reliability of this power source. Changing the acceptance criterion does not affect the probability of evaluated accidents and it provides better assurance of EDG reliability in mitigating consequences of accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. The change in the value of the minimum EDG output voltage acceptance criterion supports the assumptions in the accident analyses that sufficient voltage will be available to operate ESF equipment on the Class 1E buses when these buses are powered from the onsite emergency diesel generators. The maximum EDG output voltage of 4580 volts is not affected by this change. The change in the minimum EDG output voltage from 3740 to 3873 volts ensures the reliability of the onsite emergency power source. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. This proposed license amendment involves a change in the minimum EDG output voltage acceptance criterion in TS 3.8.1 surveillance requirements. The surveillance frequency and the different test requirements are unchanged. The change provides a better assurance that the onsite power source is able to satisfy the design requirements assumed in the accident analyses to safely shutdown the reactor and mitigate the consequences of design bases accidents. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688 WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut *Date of amendment request:* November 8, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification
(TS)Action and Surveillance Requirements
(SRs)for instrumentation identified in TSs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. In particular, the proposed amendment adds actions to address the inoperability of one or more automatic bypass removal channels; revises the terminology used in the notation of TS Tables 2.2-1 and 3.3-1 relative to the implementation and automatic removal of certain Reactor Protection System
(RPS)trip bypasses; revises the frequency for performing surveillance of the automatic bypass removal function logic; and incorporates two administrative changes. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: *Criterion 1:* Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes to Technical Specifications 2.2.1, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 do not adversely impact structure, system, or component design or operation in a manner that would result in a change in the frequency of occurrence of accident initiation. The proposed technical specification changes do not involve accident initiators, do not change the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not alter any conditions assumed in the plant accident analyses. The proposed amendment does not change the function or the manner of operation of the RPS or ESFAS [engineered safety features actuation system] trip bypass features. Adding actions to be taken for an inoperable automatic bypass removal function places additional restriction on plant operation in this condition and does not alter the setpoint or the logic of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass removals. Clarifying the frequency of the SR associated with testing the automatic bypass removal function does not alter the setpoint or the manner of operation of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass removals. More accurately reflecting the input process variable of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass removals of the affected reactor trips does not alter the setpoint nor the manner of operation of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass removals. With respect to the incorporation of the administrative changes, the proposed changes are spelling corrections and do not alter any of the requirements of the affected TS. Therefore, this change does not impact the consequences of any accident. Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 2:* Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. No new or different accidents result from clarifying actions for an inoperable automatic bypass removal function, clarifying surveillance requirements for the automatic bypass removal function, and more accurately reflecting the parameter being measured for automatic bypass removal by referring to logarithmic power, the input process variable. The results of previously performed accident analyses remain valid. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and will not change the physical plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the facility operating license. The changes do not involve the addition or modification of equipment nor do they alter the design or operation of plant systems. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 3:* Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not alter the function or manner of operation of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass removals of the affected reactor trips. The proposed changes do not affect any of the assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts *Date of amendment request:* January 4, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specification for Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCOs)and Surveillance Requirements
(SRs)for control rod operability, scram insertion times, and control rod accumulators. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes extend the frequency and revise the methodology for testing control rod scram times, and identify a new category of “slow” control rods for assessing control rod operability. The frequency of control rod scram testing is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, because the tested component is still required to be operable. The proposed test methodology is consistent with industry approved methods and ensures control rod operability requirements for the number and distribution of operable, slow, and stuck control rods continue to satisfy scram reactivity rate assumptions used in plant safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment is being installed) and do not involve a change in the design, normal configuration, or basic operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators. The proposed changes do not involve significant changes in the fundamental methods governing normal plant operation and do not require unusual or uncommon operator actions. The proposed changes provide assurance that the plant will not be operated in a mode or condition that violates the assumptions or initial conditions in the safety analyses and that SSCs [structures, systems, and components] remain capable of performing their intended safety functions as assumed in the same analyses. Consequently, the response of the plant and the plant operator to postulated events will not be significantly different. Therefore, the proposed TS change does create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. The proposed changes address control rod scram test performance and acceptance criteria as well as control rod operability requirements. The scam test acceptance criteria and control rod operability restrictions are based on industry approved methodology and will continue to ensure control rod scram design functions and reactivity insertion assumptions used in safety analyses continue to be protected. The proposed changes also extend the frequency of testing control rod scram times while at-power from 120 days to 200 days. The proposed change ensures scram testing is performed and that test results verify acceptable operation of the control rods. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.929(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Travis C. McCullough, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. *Branch Chief:* John P. Boska (Acting). Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas *Date of amendment request:* March 15, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise containment systems surveillance requirements for Technical Specification
(TS)3/4.6.2, “Depressurization, Cooling, and pH Control Systems.” The proposed amendment would revise the frequency for ANO-2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d to require verification that spray nozzels are unobstructed following maintenance that could result in a nozzel blockage (loss of foreign material exclusion control) rather than performing an air or smoke flow test through each spray header every 5 years. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do[es] the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The Containment Spray System
(CSS)is not an initiator of any analyzed event. The proposed change does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that may initiate an analyzed event. The proposed change will not alter the operation or otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment that can initiate an analyzed accident. This change does not affect the plant design. There is no increase in the likelihood of formation of significant corrosion products. Due to their location at the top of the containment, introduction of foreign material into the spray headers is unlikely. Foreign materials exclusion controls during and following maintenance provides assurance that the nozzles remain unobstructed. Consequently, there is no significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The CSS is designed to address the consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA)or a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB). The Containment Spray System is capable of performing its function effectively with the single failure of any active component in the system, any of its subsystems, or any of its support systems. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by the proposed change. 2. Do[es] the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change will not physically alter the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or change the methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do[es] the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The system is not susceptible to corrosion-induced obstruction or obstruction from sources external to the system. Strict controls are established to ensure the foreign material is not introduced into the CSS during maintenance or repairs. Maintenance activities that could introduce significant foreign material into the system require subsequent system cleanliness verification which would prevent nozzle blockage. The spray header nozzles are expected to remain unblocked and available in the event that the safety function is required. The capacity of the system would remain unaffected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council—Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi *Date of amendment request:* March 1, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change would revise the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
(GGNS)Technical Specifications
(TS)to add a note to the Required Actions of TS 3.6.1.3, “Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),” Actions A.1 and B.1. GGNS TS 3.6.1.3 requires specific actions to be taken for inoperable PCIVs. The TS Required Actions include isolating the affected penetration by use of a closed and deactivated automatic valve, closed manual valve, blind flange, or check valve with flow through the valve secured. The new note would allow a relief valve to be used without being deactivated, to comply with TS 3.6.1.3, Actions A.1 and B.1, provided it has a relief setpoint of at least 1.5 times containment design pressure ( *i.e.* , at least 23 pounds per square inch gauge) and meets one of the following criteria: 1. The relief valve is 1-inch nominal size or less, or 2. The flow path is into a closed system whose piping pressure rating exceeds the containment design pressure rating. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs) are accident mitigating features designed to limit releases from the containment following an accident. The TS specify actions to be taken to preserve the containment isolation function if a PClV is inoperable. These actions include isolating the penetration flow path by specific methods including, closed and de-activated automatic valves, closed manual valves, blind flanges, and check valves with flow through the valve secured. The current TS Actions do not specifically recognize a closed relief valve as an acceptable method of isolating a penetration flow path. Thus, special measures may need to be taken to comply with the TS Required Actions, such as replacing the relief valve with a blind flange or de-activating the relief valve by installing a gag. While such actions may provide additional assurance of preserving the containment isolation function, it may also have adverse safety affects such as disabling the overpressure protective safety feature, causing additional safety system unavailability time, and increasing occupational dose. The proposed change would allow certain relief valves to be used for isolating the penetration flow path without being de-activated. The proposed TS changes do not alter the design, operation, or capability of PCIVs. Relief valves are designed to be normally closed to preserve the piping boundary integrity yet automatically open on an abnormal process pressure to protect the piping from overpressure conditions. Relief valves may also serve as passive containment isolation devices (i.e., they do not require mechanical movement to perform the isolation function). The proposed TS changes preserve both the containment isolation and piping overpressure protection functions. The failure of a relief valve to remain closed during or following an accident is considered a low probability because relief valves are passive isolation devices that do not require mechanical movement to perform the isolation function and the relief setpoint provides sufficient margin to preclude the potential for premature opening due to containment post-accident pressures. Additional criteria are established to provide defense-in-depth protection. Relief valves that are one-inch or smaller provide an additional physical barrier in that, even in the unlikely event that a relief valve were to fail to remain fully closed during or following an accident, the size restriction would limit leakage such that a large early release would not occur. By definition, penetrations one-inch and smaller do not contribute to large early releases. Larger relief valves may be used as isolation devices provided that the containment penetration flow path through the relief valve would be contained in a closed system. In the unlikely event that a relief valve were to fail to remain closed, the leakage would be into a system which forms a closed loop outside primary containment and any containment leakage would return to primary containment through this closed loop. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation or adversely affect the design function or operation of safety features. The proposed TS change allows use of existing plant equipment as compensatory measures to maintain the containment isolation design intent when the normal isolation features are inoperable. Since relief valves used for this purpose will not be disabled by gags or blind flanges, the system piping overpressure protection design feature will also be preserved. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The safety margin associated with this change is that associated with preserving the containment integrity. NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, recognizes that relief valves with relief setpoints greater than 1.5 times containment design pressure are acceptable as containment isolation devices. Closed relief valves with relief setpoints of this margin provide an isolation alternative that is less susceptible to a single failure (i.e., inadvertent opening) yet still preserves the overpressure protection that the component was intended to provide. The failure of a relief valve to remain closed during or following an accident is considered a low probability because relief valves are passive isolation devices that do not require mechanical movement to perform the isolation function and the relief setpoint provides sufficient margin to preclude the potential for premature opening due to containment post-accident pressures. Defense-in-depth containment leakage protection is provided by additional TS criteria that limit the use of relief valves to those one-inch or less in size or those where containment leakage would be into a closed system whose piping pressure rating exceeds the containment design pressure rating. Relief valves that are one-inch or smaller provide an additional physical barrier in that, even in the unlikely event that a relief valve were to fail to remain closed during or following an accident, the size restriction would limit leakage such that a large early release would not occur. In the unlikely event that a relief valve larger than one-inch were to fail to remain closed, the leakage would be into a system which forms a closed loop outside primary containment and any containment leakage would return to primary containment through this closed loop. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council— Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* February 9, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specification
(TS)3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,” TS 3.5.2, “Emergency Core Cooling System—Operating,” TS 3.6.5, “Containment Air Temperature,” and TS 5.5.12, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.” The revised TSs would be consistent with a proposed change to the Recirculation Spray System
(RSS)pump start signal due to a modification to the containment sump screens. The proposed amendment would also replace the use of LOCTIC with the Modular Accident Analysis Program-Design Basis Accident (MAAP-DBA) for calculating containment pressure, temperature, and condensation rates for input to the SWNAUA code. The calculation methodology change would ultimately change the aerosol removal coefficients used in dose consequence analysis. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes to the RSS pump start signal, the upper containment temperature technical specification
(TS)limit, the peak containment internal pressure, the nomenclature for automatic switchover to the containment sump, and the containment sump screen visual inspection surveillance requirement do not involve any system or component that are accident initiators. The RSS is used for accident mitigation only. The Refueling Water Storage Tank
(RWST)level and containment pressure instrumentation will continue to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria (e.g., train separation, redundancy, single failure, etc.) following approval of the proposed changes. The design functions performed by the RSS and the containment are not changed by this license amendment request. Delaying the start of the RSS pumps and the change to the upper containment temperature affect the long-term containment pressure and temperature profiles. The environmental qualification of safety-related equipment inside containment will be confirmed to be acceptable and accident mitigation systems will continue to operate within design temperatures and pressures. Delaying the RSS pump start reduces the emergency diesel generator loading in the early stage of a design basis accident and maintaining the staggered loading of the RSS pump starts avoids overloading on each emergency diesel generator at Unit 1. Staggered loading of the emergency diesel generator is not required for Unit 2. The methodology change to calculate containment pressure, temperature and condensation rates for input to the SWNAUA code will not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because this change in methodology does not impact accident initiators. The loss of coolant accident
(LOCA)has been evaluated using the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.” The radiological consequences of the remaining design basis accidents are not significantly impacted by the proposed changes. As demonstrated by the supporting analyses, the estimated dose consequences at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low Population Zone (LPZ), and control room remain within the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.183 and Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1. In addition, the supporting analyses also demonstrates that the dose consequences in the Emergency Response Facility remain compliant with paragraph IV.E.8 of Appendix E, to 10 CFR part 50, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, regulatory guidance provided in Supplement 1 of NUREG-0737. The revised radiological analyses results in a slight increase in control room and off-site doses; however, the radiological analyses and evaluations developed in support of this application demonstrate that the proposed changes will not impact compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and will not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The slight increase in control room and off-site doses is more than offset by the increased assurance of adequate NPSH [net positive suction head] to the RSS pumps and Emergency Core Cooling System operability. The safety analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met following the proposed changes to the RSS pump start signal, visual sump inspection, TS containment upper temperature limit, peak containment internal pressure, nomenclature for automatic switchover to the containment sump and the change to the control room and off-site dose consequences analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. One of the proposed changes alters the RSS pump start circuitry by initiating the pump start from a coincident Containment Pressure High-High/[RWST] Level Low signal instead of from a timer. The RSS pump instrumentation will be included as part of the Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation in the TS and will be subject to the ESFAS surveillance requirements following approval of the proposed changes. The design of the RSS pump start instrumentation complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria. The failure modes have been analyzed to ensure that the revised RSS pump start circuitry can withstand a single active failure without affecting the RSS design functions. The RSS is an accident mitigation system only, so no new accident initiators are created. It is not expected that the change in containment temperature will have a significant impact on equipment qualification. However, any equipment that must be replaced or re-qualified will be addressed prior to operation with the proposed change to RSS pump start. As a result any such equipment will not introduce new failure modes, accident initiators, or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. The remaining changes do not change plant equipment design or function and therefore will not introduce new failure modes, accident initiators, or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The changes to the RSS pump start signal and the upper containment temperature limit affect the containment response and the LOCA dose analyses. Analyses demonstrate that containment design basis limits are satisfied and post-LOCA offsite and control room dose criteria will continue to be met following approval of the proposed changes. The change to the containment sump visual inspection will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the revised surveillance will continue to provide adequate assurance the sump screens are not blocked with debris and that signs of corrosion will be detected. The change to peak containment internal pressure will not result [in] a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the new pressure is lower for each of the units. Although the control room and off-site doses slightly increase (due to a combination of the change to the start signal and the proposed methodology change), the increase will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because operator and public exposure limits will continue to meet applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* John P. Boska. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS), LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York *Date of amendment request:* March 8, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would add Technical Specification
(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.8 to allow a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The proposed change is consistent with TS Task Force
(TSTF)change TSTF-372-A, Revision 4, “Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.” The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model in its application. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: *Criterion 1* —The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the vast majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 2* —The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 3* —The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the vast majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.8 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* John P. Boska. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* February 15, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications
(TSs)Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.8.4.2 to correct errors inadvertently introduced by Amendment No. 146. SR 3.8.4.2 currently requires that each battery charger be verified to supply greater than or equal to 150 amps for 250-volt DC subsystems, and greater than or equal to 50 amp for 125-volt DC subsystems. The licensee proposed to correct the errors by differentiating that the Division 1 battery chargers are verified to supply greater than or equal to 150 amps and the Division 2 battery chargers are verified to supply greater than or equal to 110 amps. The licensee stated that the Division 2 battery charger output current limiter is field-adjusted to supply 120 to 125 amps in order to stay within the electrical circuit breaker ratings in the associated distribution cabinet. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis, and has performed its own analysis as follows:
(1)Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed amendment would only correct the battery chargers' DC supply current limits specified by SR 3.8.4.2. The current limits of the battery chargers were not considered to be a precursor to, and does not affect the probability of, an accident. In addition, there is no design or operation change associated with the proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The corrected DC supply current limits of the battery chargers will ensure that the batteries will be charged under as-designed conditions. The corrected limits will not decrease the functionality of the Division 1 or Division 2 battery chargers, or the functionality of the batteries the battery chargers support. Therefore, the plant systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their design functions. As a result, the proposed amendment will not lead to a significant change in the consequences of any accident.
(2)Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component
(SSC)or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the revised acceptance value. Thus, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3)Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed amendment would only change the current supply limits of the battery chargers. There will be no modification of any TSs limiting condition for operation, no change to any limit on previously analyzed accidents, no change to how previously analyzed accidents or transients would be mitigated, no change in any methodology used to evaluate consequences of accidents, and no change in any operating procedure or process. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on the NRC staff's own analysis above, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of amendment requests:* March 30, 2007. *Description of amendment requests:* The proposed change will revise Technical Specifications
(TSs)Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.3.7.3.b, “Loss of Voltage Function” to a narrower voltage band and lower operating time for channel calibration testing, by replacing the undervoltage relays with the reset time significantly lower. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change revises the Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 3.3.7.3.b allowable set point values of the Loss of Voltage Function for the channel calibration testing. This proposed change will allow Southern California Edison
(SCE)to increase margin and conservatism for the loss of voltage relay settings and overall loop uncertainties while performing Loss of Voltage Signal
(LOVS)channel calibration testing. The loss of voltage function is detected by the LOVS relays installed on the 4.16 kV Safety Related busses. Normally, these devices are not considered to be accident initiators. The proposed change narrows the voltage operating band and lowers the allowable upper limit for this loss of voltage detection by use of the electronic type Basler BE1-27 under-voltage relays. However, the reset time of the relay [will be reduced] significantly. [Therefore, t]he proposed change does not impact probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from [an] accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed allowable values for the LOVS relays voltage settings and the minimum operating voltage of the of[f]site power will provide acceptable level of protection for the plant equipment. 3. Does the proposed change involve [a] significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed loss of voltage function is designed to ensure that plant equipment will not operate beyond its normal operating range for satisfactory operation of all the safety related equipment. The proposed loss of voltage function values will not affect the existing protection criterion for the plant equipment and will not reduce margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of amendment request:* February 16, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would permanently revise Technical Specification 2.2.1, Table 2.2-1, Functional Unit 17.A, Turbine Trip Low Trip System Pressure allowable value. The proposed revision was previously approved for one operating cycle at each unit. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change revises the allowable value for reactor trip as a result of a turbine trip on low trip system pressure. This change will not alter any plant components, systems, or processes and will only provide a more appropriate value to assess operability of the associated pressure switches. Since the plant features and operating practices are not altered, the possibility of an accident is not affected. This reactor trip is not directly credited in SQN's [Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's] accident analysis and is maintained as an anticipatory trip to enhance the overall reliability of the reactor trip system. As such, there is not a specific safety limit associated with this function and the generation of a reactor trip based on low trip system pressure is above the required actuations to ensure acceptable mitigation of accidents. As the proposed change will continue to provide an acceptable anticipatory trip signal, the offsite dose potential is not affected by this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. As described above, this change will not alter any plant equipment or operating practices that have the ability to create a new potential for accident generation. The proposed change revises the operability limits for a function that generates a trip signal when appropriate conditions exist to require accident mitigation response. This type of function does not have the ability to create an accident as its purpose and function is to mitigate events. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change will revise an allowable value for a reactor trip initiator that results from a turbine trip condition. This change will not alter the setpoint, and the calibration of the associated pressure switches will continue to be set at the current value. The allowable value change is in response to accuracy aspects of the instrumentation and does not alter the ability of this trip function to operate when and as needed to mitigate accident conditions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)The applications for amendment,
(2)the amendment, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* January 19, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated March 13 and 22, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment modifies Technical Specifications 5.5.9 and 5.6.8 to add steam generator alternate repair criteria and additional steam generator reporting criteria at H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. *Date of issuance:* April 9, 2007. *Effective date:* This license amendment is effective as of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 214. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23.* Amendment revises the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4300). The March 13 and 22, 2007, supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 9, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., *et al.* , Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut *Date of application for amendment:* March 28, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 26, and December 4, 2006, and January 26, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications
(TS)to delete redundant surveillance requirements pertaining to post-maintenance/post-modification testing. *Date of Issuance:* March 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 237. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:* Amendment revised the TS. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29673). The supplemental letters provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina *Date of application of amendments:* April 11, 2006, as supplemented October 24, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications requirements related to steam generator tube integrity consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” These amendments also remove license conditions that become outdated with these TS changes. In addition, the amendments revised the organizational description in TS 5.2.1, which is solely administrative and unrelated to steam generator tube integrity. *Date of Issuance:* April 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 355, 357, 356. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* January 3, 2007 (72 FR 149). The supplement dated October 24, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina *Date of application of amendments:* April 11, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 14, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments added Technical Specification
(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.0.8 to allow a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed with an approved Bases Control Program that is consistent with the TS Bases Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the applicable vendor's Standard Technical Specifications. *Date of Issuance:* April 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 356, 358, 357. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:* Amendments revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* January 3, 2007 (72 FR 151). The supplement provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 151). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* November 18, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated August 18 and September 28, 2006, and February 15, February 23, and March 7, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendments would revise the existing steam generator tube surveillance program using Technical Specification Task Force Traveler No. 449 (TSTF-449), Revision 4, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity” as a basis. The amendments would also revise TS 5.5.9, “Steam Generator
(SG)Tube Surveillance Program,” regarding the required SG inspection scope for Byron Station, Unit No. 2, during outage number 13 and subsequent operating cycle. A similar approval was granted for Braidwood Station, Unit 2 by letter from the NRC dated October 24, 2006. *Date of Issuance:* March 30, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 150/150, 144/144. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72 and NPF-77:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29676). The August 18 and September 28, 2006 and February 15, February 23, and March 7, 2007 supplements, contained clarifying information and did not change the staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire *Date of amendment request:* March 23, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated August 16 and November 28, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment revises the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications
(TSs)Definitions, TS 3.4.5, “Steam Generator
(SG)Tube Integrity,” and TS 3.4.6.2, “Reactor Coolant System Operational Leakage” consistent with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Traveler TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity,” Revision 4. Additionally the amendment creates TS 6.7.6.k. “Steam Generator
(SG)Program” and TS 6.8.1.7, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,” consistent with TSTF-449, Revision 4. *Date of Issuance:* March 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 115. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-86:* The amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* April 25, 2006 (71 FR 23955). The licensee's August 16 and November 28, 2006, supplements provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of proposed action published in the **Federal Register** , and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-266, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin *Date of application for amendments:* July 11, 2006, as supplemented January 19, March 9 and 26, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment revises Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.8, “Steam Generator Program,” to change the inspection and repair criteria for portions of the tubes within the hot-leg region of the tubesheet for a single operating cycle. In addition, an administrative change corrects a page number in the TS Table of Contents and deletes two blank pages in TS Section 5.0. *Date of Issuance:* April 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment No.:* 226. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51230). The supplements dated January 19, March 9 and 26, 2007, contained clarifying information and did not change the staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment removed annotations referencing Technical Data Book (TDB)-VIII, “Equipment Operability Guidance,” and annotations referencing Technical Specification Interpretations
(TSIs)from the NRC Authority File of the Technical Specifications (TSs). These documents are used by Omaha Public Power District
(OPPD)personnel for additional guidance in applying certain Limiting Conditions of Operation requirements to specific equipment and/or situations. OPPD has annotated references to these documents in the TS copies used at the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No.1 (FCS); however, these annotations were inadvertently included into the NRC Authority File and are not officially part of the FCS TS. The amendment also corrected a discrepancy in TS 2.10.4(1)(c). *Date of Issuance:* April 3, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 249. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4308). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated April 3, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* April 6, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated January 19, and February 27, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Technical Specifications
(TSs)related to steam generator tube integrity consistent with Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler 449 (TSTF-449), “Steam Generator Tube Integrity.” *Date of Issuance:* March 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 262. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-75:* The amendment revised the TSs and the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40753). The letters dated January 19, and February 27, 2007, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* June 2, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated October 19, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.8.1, “AC [alternating current] Sources—Operating,” and TS 3.8.3, “Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,” to increase the required amount of stored diesel fuel oil to support a change to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel from California diesel fuel presently in use. This change in the type of fuel oil is mandated by California air pollution control regulations. *Date of Issuance:* April 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2—211; Unit 3—203. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40754). The supplemental letter dated October 19, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* February 21, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specifications 1.1, “Definitions,” and 3.4.16, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Specific Activity.” The revisions replaced the current Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.4.16 limit on RCS grossspecific activity with limits on RCS Dose Equivalent I-131
(DEI)and Dose Equivalent Xe-133 (DEX). The conditions and required actions for LCO 3.4.16 not being met, and surveillance requirements for LCO 3.4.16, are revised. The modes of applicability for LCO 3.4.16 are extended. TS Figure 3.4.16-1 on the limit for DEI with respect to rated thermal power is deleted. *Date of issuance:* March 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 137/137. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8805). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri *Date of application for amendment:* August 17, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specifications
(TSs)2.1.1, “Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],” 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System
(RTS)Instrumentation,” 3.4.1, RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling
(DNB)Limits,” and 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).” The changes
(1)relocated certain operating cycle-specific core operating limits, including TS Figure 2.1.1-1, “Reactor Core Safety Limits,” from the TSs to the plant COLR,
(2)added two new safety limits for departure from nucleate boiling ratio and peak fuel centerline temperature, and
(3)added topical reports to TS 5.6.5 and had the reports cited by only the report title and number. TS 5.6.5 was expanded to include the limits from TSs 2.1.1, 3.3.1, and 3.4.1. *Date of Issuance:* April 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. The final TS Bases changes including the licensee's application dated August 17, 2006, will be processed under the licensee's program for updates to the TS Bases, in accordance with TS 5.5.14, at the time this amendment is implemented. The final changes to the COLR including those in the licensee's application dated August 17, 2006, will be submitted to the NRC in accordance with the update process covered by TS 5.6.5.d. *Amendment No.:* 183. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-30:* The amendment revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (72 FR 1781). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50 280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of application for amendments:* May 26, 2006, as supplemented on January 19, 2007. *Brief Description of amendments:* These amendments revised the Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to steam generator tube integrity and Reactor Coolant System leakage definitions and requirements. The TSs were revised to implement TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity,” (TSTF-449, Rev. 4) with minor deviations to be consistent with Surry's custom TSs. *Date of Issuance:* March 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 251, 250. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46941). The supplement dated January 19, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of application for amendments:* July 5, 2006, as supplemented on September 21 and November 20, 2006. *Brief Description of amendments:* These amendments revised the main control room
(MCR)and emergency switchgear room
(ESGR)air-conditioning system
(ACS)Technical Specifications to reflect the completion of permanent modifications to the equipment and associated power supply configuration. The revisions include the addition of requirements and/or action statements addressing the inoperability of two or more air handling units
(AHUs)on a unit, as well as AHU powered from an H emergency bus. The proposed change, paralleling requirements in the Improved Technical Specifications, also adds MCR and ESGR ACS requirements during refueling operations and irradiated fuel movement in the fuel building. In addition, the proposed change clarified the service water requirements for the ACS chillers that serve the MCR and ESGRs. *Date of Issuance:* April 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of date of issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 252, 251. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56193). The supplements dated September 21 and November 20, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of April 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-7534 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Notice of Cancellation of Public Hearing on Potential Withdrawal of Tariff Concessions and Increase in Applied Duties in Response to European Union
(EU)Enlargement AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice of cancellation of April 24, 2007 public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities
(EC)for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization
(WTO)rules as a result of EU enlargement. SUMMARY: On March 22, 2007, USTR published FR Doc E7-5268 (Vol. 72, No. 55) announcing that the Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC)was seeking public comment on a list of goods for which U.S. tariff concessions may be withdrawn and applied duties may be raised and announcing that the TPSC will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, on the list. All respondents to this notice have chosen to submit their comments in writing only and there were no requests to testify. Therefore, the April 24 public hearing will be cancelled. The United States is continuing to negotiate with the EU regarding the EU's provision of adequate and permanent compensation to the United States for an event that increased duties on U.S. imports to EU markets above WTO bound rates of duty. On January 1, 2007, as part of its enlargement process, the EU raised tariffs above bound rates on some imports into the countries of Romania and Bulgaria. If this issue is not resolved, the United States may seek to exercise its rights under Article XXVIII of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994* (“GATT 1994”) to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions and raise tariffs on select goods primarily supplied by the EU. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions should be directed to: Laurie Molnar, Director for European Trade Issues,
(202)395-3320; Office of the United States Trade Representative. Carmen Suro-Bredie, Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. E7-7809 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P POSTAL SERVICE Philadelphia, PA 30th Street Post Office Property Disposition AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the disposition of Postal Service(tm) property, the 30th Street Main Post Office located in Philadelphia, PA. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Dallan Wordekemper, Postal Service, Federal Preservation Officer, 4301 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington VA 22203-1961. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dallan Wordekemper, 703-526-2779. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2006, the construction of the new Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center in southwest Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was completed. With the opening of this new facility, the Postal Service is vacating much of its property in west Philadelphia. According to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), federal agencies including the Postal Service, are required to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the public, and other consulting parties, a reasonable opportunity to comment on those undertakings. Consistent with the disposition of its properties and as required by Section 106 of NHPA, the Postal Service is serving notice of this undertaking and is seeking comments from the public on the disposition of three properties: the Main Post Office, the Truck Terminal Annex, and the fourteen acre parking lot. The Postal Service will continue to maintain operations and ownership at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility located at the southwest corner of Chestnut and 30th streets; this building is not part of the disposition. The Main Post Office building, constructed from 1931-1935, stands prominently at the southeast corner of Market and 30th streets, and it extends a full city block south to Chestnut Street and east to Schuylkill Avenue. It is six stories in height and encompasses 927,183 gross square feet. The Main Post Office building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Truck Terminal Annex building, constructed in 1962, is situated on the southeast corner of Chestnut and 30th streets, and it extends a full city block south to Walnut Street and east to Schuylkill Avenue. The building is a three-story structure and measures 171,902 gross square feet. The third piece of property in this disposition of Postal Service properties is a fourteen acre parking lot that is situated south of the Truck Terminal Annex building, south of Walnut Street, east of the Schuylkill Expressway and Amtrak railroad, and west of rail High Line. In May 2007, the Postal Service plans to convey the Main Post Office to the University of Pennsylvania or its assignee, and the Truck Terminal Annex building and the fourteen acres of land to the University of Pennsylvania. The Postal Service is in consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and all improvements will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Interested persons may obtain more detailed information about this action at the retail store located in the main branch at 2970 Market Street, Philadelphia PA. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E7-7814 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P PRESIDIO TRUST Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: The Presidio Trust. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with § 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb note, Title I of Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097, as amended, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at the Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California. The purposes of this meeting are to hear presentations from the finalists selected to submit proposals for the development of a Presidio Lodge, to adopt a Philanthropic Recognition Policy, to provide an Executive Director's report, and to receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy. Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to May 2, 2007. *Times:* The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, Presidio of San Francisco. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cook, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300. Dated: April 18, 2007. Karen A. Cook, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-7738 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Summary:* In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of Information Collection Earnings Information Request; OMB 3220-0184; RRB Form G-19-F Under Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act, an annuity is not payable, or is reduced for any month(s) in which the beneficiary works for a railroad or earns more than prescribed amounts. The provisions relating to the reduction or non-payment of annuities by reason of work are prescribed in 20 CFR part 230. To obtain the information needed to determine if an annuity is not payable to an *applicant* because of earnings in excess of prescribed amounts, the RRB uses a series of basic application forms used to request specific information related to an annuitant's past, present and future earnings. To determine information needed for determining reductions in, or non-payment of, annuities currently being paid to *annuitants* , the RRB primarily relies on earnings information received from the Social Security Administration under the terms of a computer matching agreements. The RRB utilizes Form G-19-F, *Earnings Information Request,* to obtain earnings information that either had not been previously reported or erroneously reported by a beneficiary. If a respondent fails to complete the form, the RRB may be unable to pay them benefits. One response is requested of each respondent. In order to enhance program integrity, the RRB proposes to revise Form G-19-F to expand a current item that requests information about the annuitant's employer to include the employer's identification number (EID). Other minor non-burden impacting editorial changes are also proposed. The RRB estimates that 900 G-19-F's are completed annually at an estimated completion time of eight minutes per response. Total respondent burden is estimated at 120 hours. *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at
(312)751-3363 or send an e-mail request to *Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or send an e-mail to *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV* . Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-7716 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission of OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 31a-2, SEC File No. 270-174, OMB Control No. 3235-0179. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Section 31(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) requires registered investment companies (“funds”) and certain principal underwriters, broker-dealers, investment advisers and depositors of funds to maintain and preserve records as prescribed by Commission rules. 1 Rule 31a-1 specifies the books and records that each of these entities must maintain. 2 Rule 31a-2, which was adopted on April 17, 1944, specifies the time periods that entities must retain books and records required to be maintained under rule 31a-1. 3 1 15 U.S.C. 80a-30(a)(1). 2 17 CFR 270.31a-1. 3 17 CFR 270.31a-2. Rule 31a-2 requires the following: 1. Every fund must preserve permanently, and in an easily accessible place for the first two years, all books and records required under rule 31a-1(b)(1)-(4). 4 4 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(1)-(4). These include, among other records, journals detailing daily purchases and sales of securities or contracts to purchase and sell securities, general and auxiliary ledgers reflecting all asset, liability, reserve, capital, income and expense accounts, separate ledgers reflecting, separately for each portfolio security as of the trade date all “long” and “short” positions carried by the fund for its own account, and corporate charters, certificates of incorporation and by-laws. 2. Every fund must preserve for at least six years, and in an easily accessible place for the first two years: a. All books and records required under rule 31a-1(b)(5)-(12); 5 5 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(5)-(12). These include, among other records, records of each brokerage order given in connection with purchases and sales of securities by the fund, all other portfolio purchases, records of all puts, calls, spreads, straddles or other options in which the fund has an interest, has granted, or has guaranteed, records of proof of money balances in all ledger accounts, files of all advisory material received from the investment adviser, and memoranda identifying persons, committees or groups authorizing the purchase or sale of securities for the fund. b. All vouchers, memoranda, correspondence, checkbooks, bank statements, canceled checks, cash reconciliations, canceled stock certificates and all schedules that support each computation of net asset value of fund shares; c. Any advertisement, pamphlet, circular, form letter or other sales literature addressed or intended for distribution to prospective investors; d. Any record of the initial determination that a director is not an interested person of the fund, and each subsequent determination that the director is not an interested person of the fund, including any questionnaire and any other document used to determine that a director is not an interested person of the company; e. Any materials used by the disinterested directors of an fund to determine that a person who is acting as legal counsel to those directors is an independent legal counsel; and f. Any documents or other written information considered by the directors of the fund pursuant to section 15(c) of the Act in approving the terms or renewal of a contract or agreement between the company and an investment advisor. 3. Every underwriter, broker or dealer that is a majority-owned subsidiary of a fund must preserve records required to be preserved by brokers and dealers under rules adopted under section 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 6 (“section 17”) for the periods established in those rules. 6 15 U.S.C. 78q. 4. Every depositor of any fund, and every principal underwriter of any fund other than a closed-end fund, must preserve for at least six years records required to be preserved by brokers and dealers under rules adopted under section 17 to the extent the records are necessary or appropriate to record the entity's transactions with the fund. 5. Every investment adviser that is a majority-owned subsidiary of a fund must preserve the records required to be maintained by investment advisers under rules adopted under section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 7 (“section 204”) for the periods specified in those rules. 7 15 U.S.C. 80b-4. 6. Every investment adviser that is not a majority-owned subsidiary of a fund must preserve for at least six years records required to be maintained by registered investment advisers under rules adopted under section 204 to the extent the records are necessary or appropriate to reflect the adviser's transactions with the fund. The records required to be maintained and preserved under this part may be maintained and preserved for the required time by, or on behalf of, a fund on
(i)Micrographic media, including microfilm, microfiche, or any similar medium, or
(ii)electronic storage media, including any digital storage medium or system that meets the terms of this section. The fund, or person that maintains and preserves records on its behalf, must arrange and index the records in a way that permits easy location, access, and retrieval of any particular record. 8 8 In addition, the fund, or whoever maintains the documents for the fund must provide promptly any of the following that the Commission (by its examiners or other representatives) or the directors of the fund may request:
(A)A legible, true, and complete copy of the record in the medium and format in which it is stored;
(B)a legible, true, and complete printout of the record; and
(C)means to access, view, and print the records; and separately store, for the time required for preservation of the original record, a duplicate copy of the record on any medium allowed by this section. In the case of records retained on electronic storage media, the fund, or person that maintains and preserves records on its behalf, must establish and maintain procedures:
(i)To maintain and preserve the records, so as to reasonably safeguard them from loss, alteration, or destruction;
(ii)to limit access to the records to properly authorized personnel, the directors of the fund, and the Commission (including its examiners and other representatives); and
(iii)to reasonably ensure that any reproduction of a non-electronic original record on electronic storage media is complete, true, and legible when retrieved. The Commission periodically inspects the operations of all funds to ensure their compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules under the Act. The Commission staff spends a significant portion of their time in these inspections reviewing the information contained in the books and records required to be kept by rule 31a-1 and to be preserved by rule 31a-2. There are approximately 4,920 funds as of December 31, 2006, all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-2. Based on recent conversations with representatives of the fund industry and past estimates, our staff estimates that each fund currently spends 220 hours per year complying with the records preservation required by rule 31a-2. The hour burden is incurred by a variety of fund staff, and the type of staff position used for compliance with the rule varies widely from fund to fund. Based on these estimates, our staff estimates that the total annual burden of a fund to comply with rule 31a-2, is 220 hours, with a total annual burden for all funds of 1,082,400 hours. 9 9 This estimate is based on the following calculation: 4,920 registered investment company's × 220 hours = 1,082,400 total hours. The hour burden estimates for retaining records under rule 31a-2 are based on our experience with registrants and our experience with similar requirements under the Act and the rules under the Act. The number of burden hours may vary depending on, among other things, the complexity of the fund, the issues faced by the fund, and the number of series and classes of the fund. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from quantitative, comprehensive, or even representative survey or study of the burdens associated with our rules and forms. The Commission staff estimates the average cost of preserving books and records required by rule 31a-2, to be approximately $.000035 per $1.00 of net assets per year. 10 As of December 31, 2006, our staff estimates total net assets of all funds at about $10 trillion, and that compliance with rule 31a-2 costs the fund industry approximately $350 million per year. 11 Our staff estimates, however, based on conversations with representatives of the fund industry, that funds would already spend half of this amount ($175 million) to preserve these same books and records, as they are also necessary to prepare financial statements, meet various state reporting requirements, and prepare their annual federal and state income tax returns. Therefore, we estimate that the total annual cost burden for registered fund due to compliance with rule 31a-2 is $175 million per year. 10 The staff estimated the annual cost of preserving the required books and records by identifying the annual costs for several funds and then relating this total cost to the average net assets of these funds during the year. The staff estimates that the annual cost of preserving records is $70,000 per fund; the funds queried in support of this analysis had an average asset base of approximately $2 billion (70,000/2 billion = .000035). 11 This estimate is based on the annual cost per dollar of net assets of the average fund as applied to the net assets of all funds ($10 trillion × .000035 = $350 million). These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. 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 OMB control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:
(i)Desk officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and
(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or send an e-mail to *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: April 16, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7710 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55640; File No. SR-Amex-2007-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Buy-In Rules April 17, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on January 8, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by Amex. Amex filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 2 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 3 so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Amex Rules 759, 783, 784, and 789 and to adopt new Rule 798 to standardize Amex's buy-in rules. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 4 4 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by Amex. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Amex is amending its Rules 783, 784, and 789 and is adopting new Rule 798 to permit buyer executed buy-ins, 5 to reduce the waiting period to execute a buy-in from twenty-one
(21)days to three
(3)days, and to otherwise provide more standardized and consistent industry buy-in rules and procedures. Amex is also making conforming changes to Rules 759, 784, and 789. This proposal seeks to substantially mirror the recent New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) amendments to its buy-in rules approved by the Commission, which were made mainly for the purpose of achieving industry uniformity. 6 5 A “buy-in” is a transaction between broker-dealers where because the securities are not delivered on time by the broker-dealer on the sell-side, the broker-dealer on the buy-side purchases the securities from another source. 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52842 (November 28, 2005), 70 FR 72321 (December 2, 2005) [File No. SR-NYSE-2005-50]. Introduction The Amex buy-in rules apply to transactions that are not subject to the rules of a qualified clearing agency, such as The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) 7 and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) 8 , including transactions processed in NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement service (“CNS”) 9 that settle through them. 10 In the event that a buy-in is sent to the Amex floor for execution, then Amex buy-in rules apply. 7 DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law, and a clearing agency registered with the Commission. 8 NSCC is a central counterparty that provides centralized clearance, settlement, and information services for virtually all broker-to-broker equity, corporate bond and municipal bond, exchange-traded funds, and unit investment trust trades in the U.S. NSCC provides clearing and settlement, risk management, central counterparty services, and a guarantee of completion for trades. NSCC also nets trades and payments among its members thereby reducing the volume of securities and payments that need to be exchanged each day. 9 CNS is an automated accounting system that centralizes and nets the settlement of compared security transactions in order to maintain an orderly flow of security and money balances. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53528 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15506 (March 28, 2006) [File No. SR-NSCC-2005-15] (approving NSCC's CNS buy-in rules). However, under current Amex rules that place the responsibility for the actual execution of the buy-in on the defaulting member or member organization (“defaulting member” or “seller”), there are disincentives for the defaulting member to execute the buy-in. For example, the defaulting member could potentially manipulate the extent to which it has market exposure by timing its purchase of the necessary securities to benefit itself. Therefore, an initiating member or member organization (“initiating member” or “buyer”) may receive negative customer reaction if the customer learns that its trade has not been settled and that their securities are not available because a buy-in has not been executed in a timely manner by the defaulting member. Other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) have recognized this conflict of interests, and their buy-in rules assign responsibility accordingly by allowing the buyer to execute the buy-in. By allowing buyers to execute their own buy-ins, the defaulting members' conflicts of interest are avoided, and the process is expedited. The Securities Industry Association (“SIA”) Securities Operations Division Buy-In Committee (“Committee”) 11 has expressed a strong preference that Amex consider amending its buy-in rules to eliminate is buy-in notice procedures and to change who executes the buy-in to the buyer from the seller. The purpose of the Committee's recommendation is to identify and to standardize various buy-in rules and procedures regarding the buy-in process related to non-CNS transactions and to help formulate uniformity among industry rules. The Committee requested that Amex conform its rules to those of the other exchanges that allow the initiating member to execute buy-ins to close out a contract. 11 The Committee is made up of representatives from a broad cross-section of broker-dealers and industry groups. Current Requirements Amex Rule 784 sets forth the “mandatory closing of fails” process by which a buyer is required to close-out a contract that has not been completed by the seller for a period of twenty-one
(21)business days. A mandatory closing of fails requires that a notice of intention be delivered in quadruplicate and on the twenty-first
(21st)business day after the original due date of the contract by the initiating member to the seller. The member organization receiving the notice of intention must indicate its position with respect to the resolution of the failed trade ( *e.g.* , doesn't know the trade, knows the trade but cannot deliver, will deliver) and return the notice of intention to the initiating member no later than three business days after the notice was sent. If the notice of intention is not returned when due or is returned with the indication that the contract is not known, the initiating member shall itself close the contract by buying or selling the securities involved through its own floor representative. If the notice of intention is returned when due with an indication that the contract is known but that delivery cannot be made and if the contract is one which has been designated as acceptable for clearance as a fail item by a registered clearing agency of which both parties are clearing members, it shall be submitted for clearance by the defaulting member. If the notice of intention is returned when due with an indication that the contract is known but that delivery cannot be made and the contract is one which has not been designated as acceptable for clearance as a fail item by a registered clearing agency of which both parties are clearing members, the initiating member shall close the contract according to the procedures in Amex Rule 783. Therefore, the rule currently provides that more than three weeks may lapse before the contract is closed. Amex Rule 783 sets forth a permissive procedure by which an initiating member may close-out a contract that has not been executed by the defaulting member. The initiating member must provide notice of its intention to make a closing. Pursuant to Amex Rule 783, Amex determines the times for the delivery of such notices of intention to close and orders to close and the time for the closing of contracts. If the times within which securities may be delivered are extended or shortened, the time limits established by Amex may be similarly extended or shortened. 12 Once the initiating member sends the notice to the defaulting member, the defaulting member shall be given a copy of the order to close for execution on that day. If the order is not executed, the defaulting member shall return the original order within fifteen minutes of the close of trading indicating why it cannot be executed, and the buy-in desk will deliver a copy of the floor report to the initiating member. The initiating member may then close the contract and must notify the defaulting party with respect to any money differences that it will claim as damages. If the order is executed by the defaulting member, it shall furnish a copy of the order to close and a copy of the floor report to the buy-in desk on the floor. 12 Contracts made for cash within one and one-half hour before the close of trading are given different treatment with respect to timing. When a contract made for cash within one and one-half hour before the close of trading is to be closed on the same day, the time of the transaction shall be stated on the order and notice, which shall be delivered within thirty minutes after the time of the transaction, and the contract shall not be closed until thirty-five minutes after the time of the transaction. Amex Rule 789 requires an initiating member to accept physical delivery of some or all of the securities that are the subject of a buy-in thereby halting the buy-in execution for those securities if the defaulting member tenders the securities prior to the buy-in. The defaulting member must promptly tender the securities, and if they are not promptly delivered, such member or member organization is liable for any resulting damages. Proposal Amex is amending Rule 784 to allow the member or member organization failing to receive the securities to execute the buy-in and to reduce the waiting period to execute a buy-in from twenty-one
(21)days to three
(3)days after delivery on the contract was due. The elimination of Commentary .01 through .06 to Rule 784 is intended to facilitate the amendments to the buy-in procedures. The amendments to these procedures are largely proposed in the text of Rule 784. Amex believes that once the responsibility is shifted to the buy-side of the transaction, the buy-in process will work more efficiently. The amendments to Rule 784 provide that the initiating member may close a contract no sooner than three business days after the original due date for delivery (“Effective Date”). The initiating member must deliver a written notice to the defaulting member at least two days before the proposed buy-in. After receipt of the buy-in notice, the defaulting member must then send a signed, written response to the initiating member stating its position. If the response is not received by 5 p.m. ET on the day of receipt of the buy-in notice or it is returned with an indication that the contract is not known or that it is known but that delivery cannot be made, the buy-in may be executed on the Effective Date. The initiating member shall be required to accept any portion of the securities called for by the contract from the defaulting member that the defaulting member submits prior to the execution of the buy-in, but the initiating member shall not be required to accept any securities from the defaulting member if the buy-in has already been executed and if the buy-in could not have been reasonably cancelled by the initiating member. Once the buy-in has been executed, the initiating member shall notify the defaulting member confirming the purchase along with a bill or payment. Amex is also eliminating the requirements for quadruplicate paper notices and will permit electronic notices, including notices from a computerized network facility, or the electronic functionality of a Qualified Clearing Agency, such as DTC and NSCC. The amendments also change the existing time deadlines for delivering notices, securities, and executions and adopt those used by other self-regulatory organizations. Amex is also adopting new Commentary .01 to Rule 784 to help ensure that members and member organizations comply with the requirements of Regulation SHO. 13 Members and member organizations are obligated to comply with the marking, locate, and delivery requirements of Regulation SHO for short sales of equity securities. As a result, members and member organizations should have policies and procedures in place to comply with these requirements, including close-out procedures. 14 13 17 CFR 242.200 through 242.203. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004), [File No. S7-23-03] (adoption of Regulation SHO). 14 At the same time the changes noted above were being developed, the SEC implemented Regulation SHO, Regulation of Short Sales, which shares a similar purpose, the reduction of fails to deliver, with the buy-in rules. Rule 203 to Regulation SHO imposes locate and borrowing/ delivery requirements on broker-dealers that sell equity securities, including close-out requirements on certain open fail to deliver positions. Amex is rescinding Rule 783 and has incorporated the permissive buy-in procedures of Rule 783 into Rule 784. Amex is also amending Rule 789 to conform it to this proposal to permit buyer executed buy-ins and to create a Rule 798 to clarify the requirements and time frames upon which a defaulting member may deliver against a buy-in notice. Finally, Amex is making technical amendments to Rules 759, 784 and 789 to better coordinate the rules with industry practice. Amex believes that the revisions to its buy-in rules will help standardize Amex's procedure and practice by allowing members and member organizations to clean-up fails and efficiently deliver Amex-listed securities. Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. By amending the Amex buy-in rules to permit buyers to execute buy-ins, firms are expected to find it easier to execute buy-ins of Amex-listed securities. In addition, the amendments seek to remove inefficient requirements and amend time deadlines to conform to current industry practice. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest,
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition, and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 16 As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), Amex provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission or within such shorter period as designated by the Commission. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). At any time within sixty
(60)days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission could have summarily abrogated such rule change if it appeared to the Commission that such action was necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-04 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-04. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.amex.com/atamex/ruleFilings/at_rulefilings.html* . All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-04 and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2007. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7711 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55642; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-032] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, To Revise The Nasdaq Capital Market Listing Requirements April 18, 2007. I. Introduction On August 23, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to revise certain listing requirements applicable to the Nasdaq Capital Market (“NCM”). On August 28, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on September 5, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal, as amended by Amendment No. 1. On December 4, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”) to the proposed rule change. 5 On February 15, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 3 (“Amendment No. 3”) to the proposed rule change. 6 This order provides notice of Amendment No. 3 and approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b 4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq made clarifying changes to the rule text in the NCM convertible debt listing standards. Nasdaq also made clarifying changes to the purpose section regarding convertible debt, rights and warrants, and non-Canadian foreign securities and American Depository Receipts. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54378 (August 28, 2006), 71 FR 52351 (September 5, 2006) (“Notice”). 5 In Amendment No. 2, Nasdaq made minor clarifying changes to the purpose section to explain the application of the new NCM listing standards as they relate to the grace period for non-compliance with the bid requirement pursuant to Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(8)(D), 4320(e)(2)(E)(ii), and 4450(i). This is a technical amendment and is not subject to notice and comment. 6 In Amendment No. 3, Nasdaq amended its initial and continuing listing standards for convertible debt to require that current last sale information be available in the United States for the underlying security into which a convertible debt issue is convertible. II. Discussion Nasdaq proposes to increase the initial and continued listing requirements for companies seeking to list, or that are already listed, on the NCM, as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 4310 (for domestic and Canadian securities) and Nasdaq Rule 4320 (for non-Canadian foreign securities and American Depositary Receipts). 7 7 For a full description of the proposed rule change, *see* Notice, *supra* note 4 and Amendments No. 2 and 3, *supra* notes 5 and 6. The Commission finds that these proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 8 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 9 In particular, the Commission finds that these proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 In approving this proposal, as amended, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The development and enforcement of adequate standards governing the initial listing and maintenance of listing of securities is an activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public. Listing standards serve as a means for a marketplace to screen issuers and to provide listed status only to bona fide companies with sufficient float, investor base, and trading interest to maintain fair and orderly markets. Once an issuer has been approved for initial listing, the maintenance criteria allow a marketplace to monitor the status and trading characteristics of that issuer to ensure that it continues to meet standards for market depth and liquidity. The changes to the continued listing requirements will be effective 30 days after the proposed rule change is approved by the Commission. Nasdaq represents that as of February 9, 2006, it is not aware of any issuer currently listing on NCM that would fail to meet the new continued listing requirements. 11 In the case of companies applying for initial listing, the new requirements will be effective immediately upon Commission approval of this proposed rule change for companies that applied after August 23, 2006, the date this proposed rule change was filed with the Commission. Companies that applied for listing prior to August 23, 2006 would be allowed to qualify under the prior standards, provided that they complete the listing process not later than 30 days after the proposed rule change is approved by the Commission. The Commission believes this implementation schedule is reasonable, and provided adequate notice to prospective applicants for listing. 11 *See* letter from Arnold Golub, Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Elizabeth K. King, Associate Director, Division (“Division”), Commission on February 12, 2007; see also letter from Arnold Golub, Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Elizabeth K. King, Associate Director, Division, Commission on November 7, 2006. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether Amendment No. 3 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-032 *on the subject line.* Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-032. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-032 and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2007. IV. Accelerated Approval Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 the Commission finds good cause to approve the proposal, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the amended proposal is published for comment in the **Federal Register** . Amendment No. 3 requires that convertible debt securities listed on the NCM have current last sale information available in the United States for the underlying security into which a convertible debt issue is convertible. Accelerating approval of the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 3, would avoid delay in strengthening the initial and continued listing standards of the NCM, thereby benefiting investors and the public. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of the amended proposal prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** . 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-032), as modified by Amendments No. 1, 2, and 3, is approved on an accelerated basis. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7729 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55641; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Rule 103B (Specialist Stock Allocation) April 17, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 13, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On April 17, 2007, the NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as “non-controversial” under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 4 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 makes clarifications to the purpose section of the proposed rule change and typographical corrections to the rule text. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 103B (Specialist Stock Allocation) to permit a listing company transferring from NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca SM ” or “NYSE Arca”) to waive the allocation process set forth in Exchange Rule 103B when the listing company was assigned a Lead Market Maker firm (“LMM firm”), which is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE, and selects as its specialist firm on the NYSE that same NYSE Arca LMM firm. The proposed rule further provides for additional input from the listing company in the selection of its specialist firm should it choose to refer the matter to the Allocation Committee. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics.* Rule 103B Specialist Stock Allocation IX. PROVISIONS FOR ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES ISSUED BY NYSE EURONEXT OR ITS AFFILIATES X. Provisions For Allocation of Listing Companies Transferring From NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca SM ”) *to the NYSE* *(a) If a listing company transferring from NYSE Arca* SM *to the NYSE was assigned a NYSE Arca Lead Market Maker firm (“LMM firm”), which is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE, then the listing company may waive the allocation process described above and select as its registered specialist firm the same firm that was previously assigned as the NYSE Arca* SM *LMM firm. Alternatively, the listing company can choose to follow the regular allocation process and refer the matter to the Allocation Committee. If the listing company refers the matter to the Allocation committee, all specialist firms are invited to apply for such assignment.* *(b) If the listing company chooses to have its specialist firm selected by the Allocation Committee, and requests not to be allocated to the specialist firm that was its NYSE Arca* SM *LMM firm the Allocation Committee shall honor this request.* *(c) If the listing company chooses to select its specialist firm from among a group of firms selected by the Allocation Committee, the Allocation Committee shall honor the listing company's request to include or exclude from the group the specialist firm that was its NYSE Arca* SM *LMM firm.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NYSE has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 103B to permit a listing company transferring from NYSE Arca to the NYSE to waive the allocation process (“Allocation Process”) when the listing company was assigned a NYSE Arca LMM firm which is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE. Additionally, the proposed rule further provides for additional input from said listing company in the selection of their specialist firm should they choose to refer the matter to the Allocation Committee. Current Allocation Policy In accordance with existing Rule 103B, a listing company may obtain assignment of a specialist firm in the following ways:
(1)The listing company may choose to have its specialist firm selected by the Allocation Committee which must exercise its expert professional judgment when making such a selection; or
(2)the listing company may request the Allocation Committee to select a group of appropriate specialist firms to be interviewed by the listing company and the listing company then makes the final selection of the specialist firm from the group of specialist firms selected by the Allocation Committee pursuant to the provisions of Rule 103B. Proposal To Waive the Allocation Process NYSE Arca, an affiliate of the NYSE, provides its listed companies with the opportunity to have a NYSE Arca LMM firm 6 assigned to its primary listed equities. The LMM firm is the “exclusive Designated Market Maker” in such equity on NYSE Arca. The NYSE Arca LMM firm may also be a registered specialist firm on the NYSE. 6 A registered “LMM firm” is a firm that is registered with NYSE Arca and employs individuals that are registered LMMs pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7. The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 103B to allow a listing company that transfers from NYSE Arca to the NYSE to waive the Allocation Process in instances where the listing company's equity was assigned to a NYSE Arca LMM firm that is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE and the listing company wishes to have as their registered specialist firm the same NYSE Arca LMM firm. 7 7 A security may be listed on a national securities exchange upon effectiveness of a registration statement on Form 8-A of the listing company in relation to the listing and registration of the security on that exchange pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act. The Act does not prohibit companies from having multiple effective Form 8-As in relation to contemporaneous listings of a class of securities on different exchanges. When a company chooses to delist from a national securities exchange and transfer its listing to another exchange, it must do so by filing a Form 25 as required by Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Act. Rule 12d2-2(c) requires a company to give at least 10 days notice to the exchange from which it is delisting of its intention to file a Form 25 and to give contemporaneous public notice of that intent. In the absence of Commission action, the Form 25 becomes effective 10 days after its filing. SEC rules do not require companies to wait until the effectiveness of the Form 25 before commencing trading on a new exchange. However, the Exchange states that while SEC rules do not expressly prohibit the commencement of trading on the new market prior to filing of the Form 25, the general practice is for companies transferring their listing to wait to commence trading on the new market until immediately after filing of the Form 25. Generally, the market from which the company is transferring will suspend trading in the security on the first trading day after filing of the Form 25, so that for practical purposes the company will only have one trading market as of that date, although there will be two effective Form 8-As for the 10-day period prior to the effectiveness of the Form 25. The NYSE and NYSE Arca intend to follow the practice described in this paragraph in connection with companies transferring their listing from NYSE Arca to the NYSE. Upon filing of the Form 25 in relation to the delisting from NYSE Arca and the effectiveness of the Form 8-A in relation to the NYSE listing, the NYSE will commence trading in the securities and NYSE Arca will suspend trading on the same day. Alternatively, the proposed rule would permit the listing company that transfers from NYSE Arca to the NYSE to choose to follow the regular Allocation Process set forth in Exchange Rule 103B and refer the matter to the Allocation Committee. If the listing company chooses to refer the matter to the Allocation Committee, all specialist firms would be invited to apply for such assignment. The proposed rule would also provide that if the listing company chooses to have its specialist firm selected by the Allocation Committee, and requests not to be allocated to the specialist firm that was its NYSE Arca LMM firm, the Allocation Committee shall honor this request. Additionally, the proposed rule provides that if the listing company chooses to select its specialist firm from among a group of firms selected by the Allocation Committee, the Allocation Committee shall honor the listing company's request to include or exclude from the group the specialist firm that was its NYSE Arca LMM firm. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would apply to the registered LMM “firm” and specialist “firm” and not the individual employee acting on behalf of the LMM firm or specialist firm in such capacity. The proposed rule change would be similar to the procedure for spin-offs and related companies pursuant to Rule 103B. 8 Specifically, pursuant to Rule 103B, if a listing company is a spin-off or company related to a listed company, the listing company may select the specialist firm registered in the related company as its specialist without going through the Allocation Process. Alternatively, it may opt to select another specialist by participating in the regular Allocation Process. 8 *See* Exchange Rule 103B.V; *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46579 (October 1, 2002), 67 FR 63004 (October 9, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-31). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the goals of the Allocation Policy to provide an incentive for ongoing enhancement of the relationship between the listing company and the specialist firm, to encourage continued high performance of the specialist firms by allowing them to use their experience and knowledge of the listing company's securities in a new market center and to provide the best possible match between the specialist firm and the security. The proposed rule change is limited to listing companies that are transferring from NYSE Arca to the NYSE. Since NYSE Arca and NYSE are affiliates of one another, NYSE Arca's listings program for the allocation of securities is designed to meet goals that are similar to those established for the NYSE Allocation Process. The proposed waiver of the Allocation Process would occur in very limited situations. It would affect only four firms that are currently both registered specialists firms on NYSE and registered LMM firms on NYSE Arca. These four firms are currently assigned to trade equities on both NYSE and NYSE Arca. 9 9 The four firms that are presently registered LMM firms on NYSE Arca and registered specialist firms on NYSE are:
(1)Banc of America;
(2)Bear Wagner Specialists LLC;
(3)Susquehanna, and
(4)Van der Moolen Specialists USA. LaBranche and Company LLC (“LaBranche”) is presently a registered LMM firm on NYSE Arca and a registered specialist firm on NYSE but LaBranche is presently assigned to trade ETFs only on NYSE Arca and has no equities assigned to it. Consequently, LaBranche does not fit the criteria of the proposed rule at this time. Furthermore, market makers that conduct business on NYSE and NYSE Arca are both subject to the regulatory oversight of NYSE Regulation Inc. (“NYSER”). LMM firms in good standing on NYSE Arca must meet all of the market making obligations as enforced by NYSER. If an LMM firm fails to meet its market making obligations, it would no longer be eligible to serve as the LMM firm for the listed security. As such, the NYSE believes that allowing listed companies to maintain the LMM firm that trades its security on NYSE Arca when such LMM firm is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE, comports with the overall goal of the Allocation Process to provide a specialist firm that is most qualified to transact business in the listed security. Listing companies transferring from other market centers to the NYSE would not be eligible to waive the NYSE Allocation Process pursuant to the proposed rule change as the NYSE does not have control over other market center's established market making obligations. Neither does the NYSE have an understanding of the regulatory oversight related to the enforcement of the market making obligations of other market centers. Consequently, there is no assurance for the NYSE that a registered NYSE specialist firm operating as a market maker on another market center is transacting business in accordance with its market making obligations on such other market center and therefore the NYSE would require the listing company to participate fully in its Allocation Process as proscribed by Exchange Rule 103B. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in particular, because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest), the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 13 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 14 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 15 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day filing requirement. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay and designate the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing. The Exchange represented that the proposed rule change is merely administrative in nature as it seeks to allow a listing company to waive the Allocation Process set forth in Exchange Rule 103B in those limited instances where the equity of the listing company was listed on NYSE Arca and the company's equity was assigned a LMM firm that is also a registered specialist firm on the NYSE, and when the listing company transfers from NYSE Arca to the NYSE, the listing company may waive the Allocation Process and select as its registered specialist firm the same NYSE Arca LMM as its specialist firm on the NYSE. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Exchange to immediately implement this proposal and efficiently administer the allocation of equities that are currently eligible and scheduled to transfer listing from NYSE Arca to NYSE on April 18, 2007. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal, as amended, to become effective and operative upon filing. 16 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 15 *Id.* 16 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 17 17 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the Commission considers the period to commence on April 17, 2007, the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-39 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-39. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-39 and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7712 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 24, 2007. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. *Copies:* Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: *Agency Clearance Officer* , Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and *OMB Reviewer* , Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer,
(202)205-7044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Disaster Business Loan Application. *No's:* 5,1368. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* Personnel that assist in the processing of loan applications and disbursement of loan funds to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. *Responses:* 19,769. *Annual Burden:* 46,113. *Title:* 8(a) SDB Paper and Electronic Application. *No's:* 1010, 1010B, 1010C, 2065. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* 8(a) SDB Companies. *Responses:* 8,400. *Annual Burden:* 36,210. Jacqueline White, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. [FR Doc. E7-7808 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways in Washington AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)-(2). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, Yakima Grade Separation: Lincoln Avenue and B Street project, in Yakima County in the State of Washington. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 22, 2007. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Bryan L. Dillon, South Central Region Area Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501, Olympia, Washington, 98501; telephone:
(360)753-9556; e-mail: *Bryan.Dillon@fhwa.dot.gov.* The FHWA Washington Division Office's regular office hours are between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time). For Washington State: Roger Arms, Local Programs Engineer, Washington State Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 12560, Yakima, Washington, 98909-2560; telephone:
(509)577-1780; e-mail: *ArmsR@wsdot.wa.gov.* The Washington State Department of Transportation's regular office hours are between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (Pacific Time). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Washington: Yakima Grade Separation: Lincoln Avenue and B Street Project in Yakima County, Washington. The purpose of the Yakima Grade Separation project is to improve freight mobility through the city of Yakima by creating grade separation of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF)railroad tracks at the Lincoln Avenue and Martin Luther King Boulevard, formerly known as B Street, crossings in downtown Yakima, and includes the realignment of Front Street. The project will be constructed over no more than two years, and the FHWA project reference number is 000S062. The actions by the Federal agencies on this project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the project, approved on April 11, 2006, in the FHWA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued August 17, 2006, and in other documents in the FHWA project files. The EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting FHWA or the Washington State Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The EA and FONSI can be viewed and downloaded form the project Web site at *http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/Operations/Environmental/Yakima_EA.pdf* or viewed at public libraries in the project area. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. *General:* National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 2. *Air:* Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)]. 3. *Land:* Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319]. 4. *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Anadromous Fish Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)-757(g)]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ]. 5. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) *et seq.* ]; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(ll)]; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]. 6. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]; the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended [42 U.S.C. 61]. 7. *Wetlands and Water Resources:* Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377]; Coastal Zone Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1451-1465]; Land and Water Conservation Fund [16 U.S.C. 4601-4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401-406]; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128]. 8. *Hazardous Materials:* Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9675]; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [Pub. L. 99-499]; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k)]. 9. *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) Bryan L. Dillon, South Central Region Area Engineer, Olympia, Washington. [FR Doc. E7-7829 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Ford Motor Company
(Ford)in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, *Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard* , for the Ford Taurus X (formerly the Ford Freestyle) vehicle line beginning with model year
(MY)2008. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year
(MY)2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is
(202)366-0846. Her fax number is
(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 15, 2006, Ford requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Ford Taurus X (formerly the Ford Freestyle) vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, *Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard* , based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one of its vehicle lines per year. Ford has petitioned the agency to grant an exemption for its Ford Taurus X vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Ford Taurus X vehicle line. Ford will install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. Additionally, the Ford Taurus X will have a standard perimeter alarm system which will monitor all the doors, the decklid and the hood of the vehicle. Ford's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6. The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2008 Ford Taurus X is the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer System (SecuriLock). The Ford SecuriLock is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Ford stated that the integration of the transponder into the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system. When the ignition key is turned to the start position, the transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined and start of the engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message is sent to the powertrain's control module (PCM). The powertrain will function only if the key code matches the unique identification key code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the powertrain engine starter will be disabled. Ford also stated that the SecuriLock electronic engine immobilizer device makes conventional theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition lock cylinder ineffective and virtually eliminates drive-away thefts. Ford stated that the Ford Freestyle (renamed Taurus X for MY 2008) has experienced very low theft rates. The agency's theft rate data is not available for calendar year/model year (CY/MY) 2005 and 2006, however, Ford calculated its own theft rate data for the MY 2005 and 2006 Ford Freestyle vehicle line based on its CAFE production volumes and the National Insurance Crime Bureau theft data per one thousand vehicles produced. Ford stated that the theft rate for CY/MY 2005 and 2006 were 0.6744 and 1.3473, respectively. Accordingly, Ford stated that, although the NICB theft data indicates that there was an increase in the overall theft rate for CY/MY 2006 vehicles, its calculations showed that the rate for the Ford Freestyle continued to stay below the agency's median theft rate of 3.5826. Additionally, Ford noted the reduction in theft rate for other vehicle lines equipped with the SecuriLock device. Ford's SecuriLock device was first introduced as standard equipment on its MY 1996 Mustang GT and Cobra. In MY 1997, the SecuriLock system was installed on the entire Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford stated that the 1997 model year Mustang with SecuriLock shows a 70% reduction in theft compared to the MY 1995 Mustang, according to National Insurance Crime Bureau
(NICB)theft statistics. There were 149 reported thefts for 1997 compared to 500 reported thefts in 1995. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford also provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements for each test. Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Ford Taurus X vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). Based on the information Ford provided about its device, the agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's petition for exemption for the Ford Taurus X vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.” The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be *de minimis* . Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as *de minimis* , it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: April 18, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-7719 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Innovative Technology Administration Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Omnibus Household Survey Program AGENCY: Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval for a new information collection related to the use of and satisfaction with the nation's transportation system. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6665) and the comment period ended on April 14, 2007. The 60-day notice produced no comments. DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. June Taylor Jones, Passenger Travel Program Manager, Room 3430, RITA, BTS, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone
(202)366-4743, Fax
(202)493-0568 or e-mail *june.jones@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Omnibus Household Survey
(OHS)Program. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *OMB Control Number:* New. *Affected Public:* The population for the OHS Program is the non-institutionalized population, aged 18 and older, who live in the United States. The sampling frame will be a list-assisted random digit dialing
(RDD)sample of U.S. residential telephone numbers. The sampling frame will be constructed to produce samples proportional to population density, resulting in nationally representative samples of residential telephone numbers. Individual survey respondents within selected households will be chosen at random. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000-2,000 (depending on focus of survey). *Number of Responses:* 1,000-2,000 (depending on focus of survey). *Total Annual Burden:* 250-500 hours (Based on previous data collections, we estimate the average time to complete the survey is 15 minutes. 15 minutes × 1,000 respondents = 15,000 minutes/60 minutes = 250 hours or 500 hours if 2,000 respondents are sampled). *Abstract:* In 2005, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; Pub. L. 109-59). SAFETEA-LU contained a number of legislative mandates including providing data, statistics and analyses to transportation decision-makers. The Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (RITA/BTS) was tasked to accomplish this legislative mandate under 49 U.S.C. 111
(c)(1). RITA/BTS plans to use the Omnibus Household Survey
(OHS)to: • Assess the public's evaluation of the nation's transportation system in light of the DOT's strategic goals (safety, reduced congestion, global connectivity, environmental stewardship and security, preparedness and response), • Provide a vehicle for the operating administrations within the DOT as well as other governmental agencies, to survey the public about current transportation issues, and • Provide national estimates of transportation mode usage. Each version of the OHS will focus on some subset of topics taken from the list below. Topics may vary from survey to survey since covering all topics in one questionnaire would make the respondent burden unacceptable: Frequency of mode use in the month prior to the survey month: Commercial air Privately-owned vehicle Taxi Light rail Commuter rail Public bus Intercity Rail (Amtrak) Other modes such as biking and walking Confidence in the safety of the following modes of transportation: Commercial air Privately-owned vehicle Taxi Light rail Commuter rail Water transportation (taxis, ferries, ships) Public bus Intercity Rail (Amtrak) Other modes such as biking/walking/ferries Confidence in the security procedures for the following modes of transportation: Commercial air Charter/general aviation Privately-owned vehicle Taxi Light rail Commuter rail Water transportation (taxis, ferries, ships) Public bus Intercity Rail (Amtrak) Assessment of/satisfaction with security procedures for the following modes of transportation: Commercial air Charter/general aviation Privately-owned vehicle Taxi Light rail Commuter rail Water transportation (taxis, ferries, ships) Public bus Intercity Rail (Amtrak) Processing through security at Commercial airports Train stations Waterway entry points for ferries, water taxis, cruises Knowledge of/confidence in the Registered Traveler Program Knowledge of Registered Traveler Program Have used Registered Traveler Program Confidence in Registered Traveler Program Knowledge of current check-in procedures at Commercial airports Train stations Waterway entry points for ferries, water taxis, cruises Knowledge of/confidence in the Alien Flight Student Program and TSA Vetting Programs Experiences with transit delays related to suspicious/unattended baggage Willingness/tolerance of transportation security risk management procedures Information on journey to work Transportation used (single mode/multiple mode) Time required for one-way trip Number of days traveled Assessment of congestion Methods for dealing with congestion Telecommuting information Commuting costs Availability of transportation subsidies Impact of congestion on commute Impact of fuel costs on transportation use/travel behavior Impact of on-line shopping on passenger and freight travel Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer. Issued in Washington, DC on this 16th day of April, 2007. William Bannister, Acting Deputy Director, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, US Department of Transportation. [FR Doc. E7-7755 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P 72 78 Tuesday, April 24, 2007 CORRECTIONS Don DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 070227047-7047-01; I.D. 020405C] RIN 0648-AS96 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14; Essential Fish Habitat Descriptions for Pacific Salmon Correction In proposed rule document 07-1946 beginning on page 19862 in the issue of Friday, April 20, 2007 make the following correction: On page 19862, in the second column, under the DATES heading, in the last line “July 19, 2007” should read “June 19, 2007”. [FR Doc. C7-1946 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D Ben ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 600 [EPA-HP-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8257-5] RIN 2060-AN14 Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates Correction Rule document 06-9749, originally published at 71 FR 77872-77969,(77941), December 27, 2006, corrected at 72 FR 7921, February 21, 2007, and is further corrected as follows: § 600.114-08 [Corrected] In correction document C6-9749 in the issue of Wednesday, February 21, 2007, on page 7921, in § 600.114-08(c)(1)(ii)(B), the equation is further corrected to read as follows: ER27DE06.058 [FR Doc. C6-9749 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D 72 78 Tuesday, April 24, 2007 Proposed Rules Part II Department of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 200 Uniform Physical Condition Standards and Physical Inspection Requirements for Certain HUD Housing; Revision to Response Time for Requesting a Technical Review of a Physical Inspection Report; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 200 [Docket No. FR-5070-P-01] RIN 2502-AI43 Uniform Physical Condition Standards and Physical Inspection Requirements for Certain HUD Housing; Revision to Response Time for Requesting a Technical Review of a Physical Inspection Report AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: HUD assesses the physical conditions of multifamily properties and notifies owners of its assessment. The owners, under certain circumstances, are provided an opportunity to seek a technical review of HUD's physical condition assessment and HUD may take action in certain cases where the housing is found not to be in compliance with the physical condition standards. Currently, the regulations establish different time frames for owners to request a technical review, depending on whether HUD transmits the inspection results through the Internet or certified mail. In order to improve uniformity in the technical review request process, this proposed rule would implement a standard time frame of 30 calendar days for the submission of a request for a technical review for both physical inspection results that are transmitted to the owner via the Internet or in hard copy form via certified mail. DATES: *Comment Due Date:* May 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Interested persons also may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically so that HUD, in turn, can make them immediately available to the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. Facsimile
(FAX)comments are not acceptable. In all cases, communications must refer to the docket number and title. All comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at
(202)708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hannon, Director, Business Relationships and Special Initiatives Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6176, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone
(202)708-3944, extension 2599 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at
(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 200, subpart P, establish for multifamily housing certain administrative processes by which HUD notifies owners of HUD's assessment of the physical condition of their multifamily housing. The regulations provide owners, under certain circumstances, with the opportunity to seek a technical review of HUD's physical condition assessment of the multifamily housing; the regulations also allow HUD to take action in certain cases where such housing is found not to be in compliance with the physical condition standards. The regulations in 24 CFR part 200, subpart P, build upon the regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G, that establish uniform physical condition standards
(UPCS)for public housing and housing that is insured and/or assisted under certain HUD programs (collectively, such housing is referred to as HUD properties). The regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G, also establish a uniform physical inspection protocol, based on computer software developed by HUD, which allows HUD to determine compliance with these standards. The UPCS are intended to ensure that HUD program participants carry out their legal obligations to maintain HUD properties in a condition that is decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. The uniform inspection protocol is intended to assure that, to the greatest extent possible, there is uniformity and objectivity in the evaluation of the physical condition of HUD properties. The regulations in 24 CFR part 200, subpart P, currently provide for two different time frames for owners to request a technical review of HUD's physical inspection assessment, depending on whether HUD transmits the inspection results to the owner through the Internet or via certified mail. Owners receiving their inspection results through certified mail are provided 30 calendar days to submit a request for a technical review, while those owners receiving their results electronically have only 15 calendar days to request a review. II. This Proposed Rule For technical review requests, HUD originally established one time frame for reviewing HUD inspection results for owners who receive the results by mail and another for reviewing HUD inspection results for owners who receive the results electronically. HUD did this because mailed communications between HUD and the owner would be slower. In establishing a response time of 30 days for a request from an owner who received the results by mail, HUD allowed for time to review the results and time for the owner to receive the mailed request. From almost 10 years of experience with this process, HUD has concluded that the differing deadlines have been confusing and do not necessarily establish equal review and response time for owners. To address these concerns, this proposed rule would make one change to the time frames for requesting technical review. In § 200.857, HUD is revising paragraphs (c)(3) and
(d)to include a uniform, 30-calendar-day time frame for the submission of a request for a technical review for physical inspection results that are transmitted to the owner either via the Internet or in hard copy via certified mail. Specifically, the proposed rule provides that HUD must receive requests for review no later than 30 calendar days from the date that HUD transmits the physical inspection report to the owner (as established by the postmark, if applicable). HUD believes that establishing a uniform time frame for requesting a technical review will be more equitable and less confusing to its clients, and simpler for its multifamily field offices to administer. III. Justification for 30-Day Comment Period In accordance with HUD's regulations concerning rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10 (entitled, “Rulemaking Policy and Procedures”), it is HUD's policy that the public comment period for proposed rules should be 60 days. In the case of this proposed rule, however, HUD has determined there is good cause to reduce the public comment period to 30 days. As discussed in more detail earlier in this preamble, this proposed rule would implement only a minor regulatory change that would make HUD's procedures more uniform and easier to follow. Specifically, the proposed rule would provide for a uniform, 30-calendar-day period for submission of review requests, whether the owner receives the results electronically or via certified mail. HUD anticipates that a uniform time frame will expedite the processing of review requests because it will eliminate confusion and, therefore, promote efficiency in the process. The regulatory change is procedural and does not revise or establish new binding physical inspection requirements on owners. Nothing in the proposed rule would restrict owners from submitting a review request prior to the close of the 30 days, and owners may continue to submit their requests as quickly as they choose. Given the procedural and streamlining nature of the proposed regulatory changes, HUD believes that good cause exists to reduce the public comment period to 30 days. All comments will be considered in the development of the final rule. IV. Findings and Certifications Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control number 2502-0369. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. Environmental Impact In accordance with 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, this rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* )
(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would establish a uniform time frame for submission of review requests for all owners, irrespective of size. The regulatory change is procedural and does not revise or establish new binding requirements on owners. HUD anticipates that a uniform time frame will eliminate confusion and, therefore, expedite the processing of review requests. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandate on state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA. Federalism Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order. List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 200 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs, Housing and community development, Minimum property standards, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security, Unemployment compensation, and Wages. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 200 as follows: PART 200—INTRODUCTION TO FHA PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 2. Revise § 200.857(c)(3) and
(d)introductory text to read as follows: § 200.857 Administrative process for scoring and ranking the physical condition of multifamily housing properties.
(c)* * *
(3)If, following review of the physical inspection results and score, the owner reasonably believes that an objectively verifiable and material error (or errors) occurred in the inspection, which, if corrected, will result in a significant improvement in the property's overall score (“significant improvement” is defined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section), the owner may submit a written request for a technical review. The technical review request must be received in writing no later than 30 calendar days (as established by the postmark, if applicable) from the date the physical inspection results are transmitted to the owner by REAC whether the results and score are transmitted to the owner via the Internet, or by hard copy via certified mail.
(d)*Technical review of physical inspection results.* A request for a technical review of physical inspection results must be submitted in writing to REAC and must be received by REAC no later than the 30th calendar day, as applicable under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, following submission of the physical inspection report to the owner as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Dated: March 21, 2007. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E7-7706 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P 72 78 Tuesday, April 24, 2007 Rules and Regulations Part III Securities and Exchange Commission 17 CFR Part 230 Covered Securities Pursuant to Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933; Final Rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 230 [Release No. 33-8791; File No. S7-18-06] RIN 3235-AJ73 Covered Securities Pursuant to Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) is adopting an amendment to a rule under Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) to designate securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the Nasdaq Capital Market tier of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) as covered securities for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act. Covered securities under Section 18 of the Securities Act are exempt from State law registration requirements. The Commission also is making a correction to the rule text to conform it to the language of Section 18 of the Securities Act. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Seidel, Assistant Director,
(202)551-5608, Hong-anh Tran, Special Counsel,
(202)551-5637, or Michou Nguyen, Special Counsel,
(202)551-5634, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6628. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction In 1996, Congress amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to exempt from state registration requirements securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), or the National Market System of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq/NGM”) 1 (collectively, the “Named Markets”), or any national securities exchange designated by the Commission to have substantially similar listing standards to those markets. 2 More specifically, Section 18(a) of the Securities Act provides that “no law, rule, regulation, or order, or other administrative action of any State * * * requiring, or with respect to, registration or qualification of securities * * * shall directly or indirectly apply to a security that—(A) is a covered security.” 3 Covered securities are defined in Section 18(b)(1) of the Securities Act to include those securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the Named Markets, or securities listed, or authorized for listing, on a national securities exchange (or tier or segment thereof) that has listing standards that the Commission determines by rule are “substantially similar” to the Named Markets. 4 1 As of July 1, 2006, the National Market System of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC is known as the Nasdaq Global Market. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53799 (May 12, 2006), 71 FR 29195 (May 19, 2006) and 54071 (June 29, 2006), 71 FR 38922 (July 10, 2006). 2 *See* National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 (October 11, 1996). 3 15 U.S.C. 77r(a). 4 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(A) and (B). In addition, securities of the same issuer that are equal in seniority or senior to a security listed on a Named Market or national securities exchange designated by the Commission as having substantially similar listing standards to a Named Market are covered securities for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act. 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Section 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act, the Commission adopted Rule 146. 5 Rule 146(b) lists those national securities exchanges, or segments or tiers thereof, that the Commission has determined to have listing standards substantially similar to those of the Named Markets and thus securities listed on such exchanges are deemed covered securities. 6 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39542 (January 13, 1998), 63 FR 3032 (January 21, 1998) (determining that the listing standards of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), Tier 1 of the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”) (now known as NYSE Arca, Inc.), and Tier 1 of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) were substantially similar to those of the Named Markets and that securities listed pursuant to those standards would be deemed covered securities for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act). In 2004, the Commission amended Rule 146(b) to designate options listed on the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”) (now known as the International Securities Exchange, LLC) as covered securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. 6 17 CFR 230.146(b). Nasdaq has petitioned the Commission to amend Rule 146(b) to determine that its listing standards for securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (“NCM”) 7 are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets and, accordingly, that securities listed pursuant to such listing standards are covered securities for purposes of Section 18(b) of the Securities Act. 8 7 The Nasdaq Capital Market was previously named the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. 8 *See* letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated March 1, 2006 (File No. 4—513) (“Nasdaq Petition”). On November 22, 2006, the Commission issued a release proposing to amend Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed on the NCM as covered securities for purposes of Section 18(a) of the Securities Act. 9 The Commission received seven comment letters, all expressing overall support for the Nasdaq Petition. 10 In connection with its petition, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change to amend its quantitative listing standards for NCM securities to make its NCM listing standards substantially similar to the Named Markets. 11 On April 18, 2007, the Commission approved this proposed rule change. 12 9 Securities Act Release No. 8754 (November 16, 2006), 71 FR 67762 (November 22, 2006) (“Proposing Release”). 10 *See* letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Alan M. Parness, Vice Chair, State Regulation of Securities Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Business Law (“ABA Committee”), dated April 3, 2006 (“ABA Committee April 3rd Letter”); letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Patricia D. Struck, The North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) President and Wisconsin Securities Administrator, dated March 29, 2006 (“NASAA March 29th Letter”); electronic mail to Robert L.D. Colby, Acting Director, Division, Commission, from Randall Schumann, Legal Counsel, Wisconsin DFI-Division of Securities, NASAA Corporation Finance Section Member, dated June 1, 2006; letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Alan M. Parness, Vice Chair, ABA Committee, dated December 20, 2006 (“ABA Committee December 20th Letter”); letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Joseph P. Borg, NASAA President and Director, Alabama Securities Commission, dated December 21, 2006 (“NASAA December 21st Letter”); letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Joseph P. Borg, NASAA President and Director, Alabama Securities Commission, dated December 21, 2006 (“NASAA Supplemental Letter”); and letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Phillip B. Kennedy, Esq., Gaeta & Eveson, P.A., dated December 19, 2006 (“Kennedy Letter”). In addition, the Commission's Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies recommended on April 23, 2006 that the Commission make NCM stocks “covered securities.” SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies, Final Report, at 97-100 (2006). 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54378 (August 28, 2006) (“Nasdaq Proposed Rule Change”), 71 FR 52351 (September 5, 2006). 12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55642 (April 18, 2007) (“NCM Listing Standard Amendments”). Based on the approved changes to the NCM listing standards and after careful comparison, the Commission concludes that the listing standards of the NCM are substantially similar to the listing standards of the Named Markets. Accordingly, the Commission today is amending Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM as covered securities under Section 18(b)(1) of the Securities Act. 13 Amending Rule 146(b) to include securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM as covered securities will exempt those securities from state registration requirements as set forth under Section 18(a) of the Securities Act. 14 13 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1). 14 15 U.S.C. 77r(a). II. Amendment to Rule 146(b) to Include Nasdaq NCM Securities Under Section 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act, 15 the Commission has the authority to compare the listing standards of a petitioner with those of the NYSE, Amex, or Nasdaq/NGM. The Commission initially compared Nasdaq's listing standards for all NCM securities with only one of the Named Markets. If the listing standards in a particular category did not meet the standards of that market, the Commission compared the petitioner's standards to the other two Named Markets. 16 In addition, the Commission interpreted the “substantially similar” standard to require listing standards at least as comprehensive as those of the Named Markets. 17 If a petitioner's listing standards are higher than the Named Markets, then the Commission still determined that the petitioner's listing standards are substantially similar to the Named Markets. Finally, the Commission notes that differences in language or approach would not necessarily lead to a determination that the listing standards of the petitioner are not substantially similar to those of a Named Market. 15 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(A). 16 This approach is consistent with the approach that the Commission has previously taken. *See* Securities Act Release Nos. 7422 (June 9, 1997), 62 FR 32705 (June 17, 1997) and 7494 (January 13, 1998), 63 FR 3032 (January 21, 1998). 17 Securities Act Release No. 7422, *supra* note 16. The Commission has reviewed the NCM's listing standards, as amended, 18 and, for the reasons discussed below, believes that the standards are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets. Accordingly, the Commission is amending Rule 146(b) to include securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM. Because the Commission believes Nasdaq's qualitative listing standards for NCM securities are identical to the qualitative listing standards for Nasdaq/NGM securities, 19 the discussion below focuses on the NCM quantitative listing standards. 18 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra,* note 12. 19 Such qualitative listing standards relate to, among other things, the number of independent directors required, conflicts of interest, composition of the audit committee, executive compensation, shareholder meeting requirements, voting rights, quorum, code of conduct, proxies, shareholder approval of certain corporate actions, and the annual and interim reports requirements. *See* Nasdaq Rule 4350. A. Common Stock As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily believed that some, but not all, of the requirements in Nasdaq's then-existing quantitative initial listing standards for common stock listing on the NCM were substantially similar to those of Amex's common stock listing standards. The NCM Listing Standard Amendments modify those NCM initial listing standards for common stock to require an issuer to have: • Shareholder's equity of $4 million and net income from continuing operations of $750,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years, and a market value of publicly held shares of $5 million; • Shareholder's equity of $4 million, a market value of listed securities of $50 million, and a market value of publicly held shares of $15 million; or • Shareholder's equity of $5 million, a two-year operating history, and a market value of publicly held shares of $15 million. 20 20 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra,* note 12. In light of these rule changes, the Commission finds the NCM initial listing standards for common stock to be substantially similar to those of Amex. The Commission finds that the continued listing requirements for common stock listed on the NCM, while not identical, are substantially similar to those of Amex. Amex's delisting criteria are triggered by poor financial condition or operating results of the issuer. 21 Specifically, Amex will consider delisting an equity issue if:
(i)Stockholders' equity is less than $2 million and such issuer has sustained losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in two of its three most recent fiscal years;
(ii)stockholders' equity is less than $4 million and such issuer has sustained losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in three of its four most recent fiscal years;
(iii)stockholders' equity is less than $6 million if such issuer has sustained losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in its five most recent fiscal years; or
(iv)the issuer has sustained losses which are so substantial in relation to its overall operations or its existing financial resources, or its financial condition has become so impaired that it appears questionable, in the opinion of the Exchange, as to whether such company will be able to continue operations and/or meet its obligations as they mature. 22 21 *See* generally Sections 1001 through 1006 of the Amex Company Guide. 22 *See* Section 1003(a) of the Amex Company Guide. Amex also will consider delisting if:
(i)An issuer has sold or otherwise disposed of its principal operating assets or has ceased to be an operating company or has discontinued a substantial portion of its operations or business;
(ii)if substantial liquidation of the issuer has been made; or
(iii)if advice has been received, deemed by the Exchange to be authoritative, that the security is without value, or in the case of a common stock, such stock has been selling for a substantial period of time at a low price. *See* Section 1003(c) and (f)(v) of the Amex Company Guide. Although Nasdaq's NCM does not have the same continued listing requirements, Nasdaq also looks at the financial condition and operating results of the issuer. Specifically, for continued listing, Nasdaq requires an issuer to have shareholder's equity of at least $2.5 million, market value of listed securities of at least $35 million, or net income of $500,000 from continuing operations in the past fiscal year or two out of its three past fiscal years. 23 Further, Nasdaq requires that the listed issue have a minimum bid price for continued listing of $1 per share. 24 In addition, for continued listing, Nasdaq requires an issuer to have a minimum of 500,000 publicly held shares with a market value of at least $1 million. 25 The Commission finds that the maintenance criteria for common stock listed on Amex and on the NCM are substantially similar. 26 23 Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 24 Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(4). Amex will consider delisting if the price per share is “low.” *See* Amex Rule 1003(f)(v). 25 Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(7)(A). Amex will consider delisting the common stock of an issuer if the aggregate market value of such publicly held shares is less than $1 million for more than 90 consecutive days, the number of publicly held shares is less than 200,000 shares, or the number of its public stockholders is less than 300. *See* Section 1003(b) of the Amex Company Guide. 26 As noted above, the Commission has interpreted the substantially similar standard to require listing standards at least as comprehensive as those of the Named Markets, and differences in language or approach of the listing standards are not dispositive. B. Secondary Classes of Common Stocks Only Nasdaq has listing standards for the trading of a secondary class of common stock. A secondary class of common stock is a class of common stock of an issuer that has another class of common stock listed on an exchange. The Commission compared the NCM listing standards for secondary classes of common stock and preferred stocks with the listing standards of the Nasdaq/NGM. As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commission preliminarily believed that with respect to the number of round lot holders, 27 bid price, 28 and number of publicly held shares 29 requirements, 30 Nasdaq's initial and continued listing requirements for secondary classes of common stock and preferred stocks listing on the NCM were substantially similar to the listing standards for the Nasdaq/NGM. The Commission did not, however, believe that the initial continued listing requirements for market value of publicly held shares for NCM were substantially similar to Nasdaq/NGM standards. 31 27 Both Nasdaq NCM and NGM require 100 round lot holders. *See* NASD Rules 4310(c)(6)(B) and 4420(k)(4). Nasdaq/NGM also requires 100 round lot holders for continued listing. Although the NCM requirements previously did not explicitly require a continuing number of round lot holders, the NCM Listing Standard Amendments clarified that the 100 round lot holders requirement also will apply as a continued listing requirement for the NCM preferred and secondary classes of common stock standards. *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra* note 12. 28 While the NCM bid price requirement for initial listing is $4 and the Nasdaq/NGM requirement is $5, the Commission believes that these standards are substantially similar. Both NGM and NCM require a $1 bid price for continued listing. *See* Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(4), 4420(k)(3), and 4450(h)(3). 29 Both Nasdaq NCM and NGM require 200,000 publicly held shares for initial listing, and 100,000 publicly held shares for continued listing. *See* Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(7)(B), 4420(k)(1), and 4450(h)(1). 30 The Commission notes that these requirements apply to instances when the common stock or common stock equivalent security of the issuer is listed on Nasdaq/NGM, NCM, Global Select Market (“GSM”) (the GSM is a segment of the NGM, *see* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53799 and 54071, *supra* note 1), or another national securities exchange. If the common stock or common stock equivalent is not listed on one of these markets then the security must meet the common stock listing requirements for the relevant market (either Nasdaq/NGM or NCM). *See* generally NASD Rules 4310(c)(6)(B) and 4420(k). 31 *See* Proposing Release, *supra* note 9, at notes 43-44 and accompanying text. In the NCM Listing Standard Amendments, Nasdaq increased the NCM listing standards for both preferred and secondary classes of common stock for the market value of publicly held shares to $3.5 million for initial listing and $1 million for continued listing. 32 Nasdaq also increased its initial and continued NCM listing rules for secondary classes of common stock and preferred stock to require that the common stock or common stock equivalent of the issuer either be listed on Nasdaq or be a covered security as defined in Rule 146(b). 33 In light of these revisions to the NCM's initial and continued listing standards for secondary classes of common stock and preferred stocks, the Commission finds that the NCM's rules for initial and continued listing for secondary classes of common stock and preferred stock are substantially similar to Nasdaq/NGM's rules. 32 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra* note 12. 33 *Id.* C. Convertible Debt The Commission has compared the NCM listing standards for convertible debt to Amex's listing standards for debt. 34 In the NCM Listing Standards Amendments, Nasdaq added a debt rating requirement similar to a requirement in Amex's listing standards. 35 Specifically, Nasdaq requires that for the initial listing of convertible debt, one of the following conditions must be met:
(i)The issuer of the debt security must also have an equity security listed on the Amex, NYSE, or Nasdaq;
(ii)an issuer of equity security listed on the Amex, NYSE, or Nasdaq, directly or indirectly owns a majority interest in, or is under common control with, the issuer of the debt security;
(iii)an issuer of equity security listed on the Amex, NYSE, or Nasdaq has guaranteed the debt security;
(iv)a nationally recognized securities rating organization (an “NRSRO”) has assigned a current rating to the debt security that is no lower than an S&P Corporation “B” rating or equivalent rating by another NRSRO; or
(v)if no NRSRO has assigned a rating to the issue, an NRSRO has currently assigned an investment grade rating to an immediately senior issue or a rating that is no lower than an S&P Corporation “B” rating, or an equivalent rating by another NRSRO, to a *pari passu* or junior issue. 36 The Listing Standards Amendment also requires that current sale information be available in the United States for the underlying security into which a convertible debt issue is convertible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the NCM's listing standards for convertible debt are substantially similar to those of Amex. 34 *See* generally Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(5) and Sections 104 and 1003 of the Amex Company Guide. 35 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra* note 12. 36 *See* Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(5)(B). The Commission also finds that the continued listing requirements for convertible debt securities listed on the NCM are substantially similar to Amex's requirements. The NCM listing standards require that the principal amount outstanding be maintained at $5 million. 37 Amex generally will delist a bond if the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the bond publicly held is less than $400,000, or if the issuer is not able to meet its obligations on the listed debt. 38 Although not identical, the Commission believes that both standards are designed to ensure the continued liquidity of the debt security, and thus are substantially similar. 37 *Id.* 38 *See* Section 1003(b)(iv) of the Amex Company Guide. Section 1003(e) of the Amex Company Guide states that convertible bonds will be reviewed when the underlying security is delisted and will be delisted when the underlying security is no longer the subject of real-time reporting in the United States. The Commission does not believe that this is material because although Nasdaq does not have an identical rule, it does have the discretion to delist beyond its standards. D. Warrants The Commission compared Nasdaq's NCM listing standards for warrants to the Nasdaq/NGM standards. In the Proposing Release, the Commission stated that it preliminarily believed that the NCM standards were not substantially similar to the Nasdaq/NGM standards. The NCM Listing Standard Amendments, however, increased the required number of warrants that must be outstanding for initial listing on the NCM from 100,000 to 400,000. 39 Though not identical, the Commission believes this initial listing requirement is substantially similar to Nasdaq/NGM requirements that there be 450,000 warrants outstanding for initial listing. The NCM Listing Standard Amendments also added a requirement for initial and continued listing that the security underlying the warrant be listed on Nasdaq or be a covered security as described in Section 18(b). 40 The Commission believes this requirement is substantially similar to the Nasdaq/NGM standard that requires that, for continued listing, the common stock of the issuer must continue to be listed on the Nasdaq/NGM. 41 In light of the changes made by the NCM Listing Standard Amendments, the Commission finds the NCM's listing standards for warrants are substantially similar to those of Nasdaq/NGM. 39 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra* note 12. 40 *Id.* 41 *See* Nasdaq Rule 4450(d). E. Index Warrants Index warrants traded on the NCM, must meet the same initial and continuing listing standards as index warrants traded on the Nasdaq/NGM market. 42 Therefore, the Commission finds that the listing standards for index warrants traded on the NCM are substantially similar to the standards applicable to index warrants traded on the Nasdaq/NGM market. 42 *See* generally Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(9)(C). F. Units The NCM, Amex, and Nasdaq/NGM all evaluate the initial and continued listing of a unit by looking to its components. 43 If all of the components of a unit individually meet the standards for listing, then the unit would meet the standards for listing. 44 In light of the NCM Listing Standard Amendments, which increase the listing requirements for the different categories of securities discussed above that could make up the components of a unit, the Commission finds that the NCM listing standards for units are substantially similar to both Amex and Nasdaq/NGM listing standards. 45 43 A unit is a type of security consisting of two or more different types of securities ( *e.g.* , a combination of common stocks and warrants). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48464 (September 9, 2003), 68 FR 54250 (September 16, 2003). 44 *See* generally Section 101(g) of the Amex Company Guide and Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(10) and 4420(h)(1)(a)-(c). 45 *See* NCM Listing Standard Amendments, *supra* note 12. III. Other Changes to Rule 146(b) A. Clarifying Changes in Response to Comments In response to comments received from the ABA Committee and NASAA, the Commission is making a minor amendment to Rule 146(b) to include securities “authorized for listing” on a market named in Rule 146(b). NASAA and the ABA Committee expressed concern regarding a discrepancy between the language of Section 18 under the Securities Act and Rule 146(b) thereunder. Section 18 defines covered securities as securities “listed, or authorized for listing” on the Named Markets, or the other exchanges that have listing standards that the Commission has deemed to be substantially similar to the Named Markets. Rule 146(b), however, deems as “covered securities” only securities listed, not those that are “authorized for listing,” pursuant to exchange rules that the Commission has found to be substantially similar to the Named Markets. NASAA and the ABA Committee expressed concern that some issuers that are authorized for listing but not yet listed on an exchange identified in Rule 146(b) would not clearly be exempt from state qualification or registration requirements. They recommend that the Commission clarify the language in Rule 146(b) to conform it to the language of Section 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act. 46 The Commission believes that this clarifying change to Rule 146(b) is consistent with Congressional intent, as well as the Commission's intent, is appropriate, and addresses the commenters” concerns. 47 46 *See* ABA Committee April 3rd Letter; ABA Committee December 20th Letter; and NASAA Supplemental Letter, *supra* note 10. 47 The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** . The APA's notice and comment requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds * * * that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Sec. 5. U.S.C. Section 553(b)(3)(B). The Commission finds good cause to include the language “authorized for listing” to the rule because prior notice is unnecessary. The change does not alter the substance of the rule and incorporates language from the statute. Another commenter expressed concern about a perceived ambiguity in Rule 146(b)(2). Rule 146(b)(2) conditions the designation of securities on the exchanges specified under Rule 146(b)(1) as “covered securities” as long as their listing standards continue to be substantially similar to those of the Named Markets. The commenter believes that it is not clear who makes this determination and recommends that the phrase “as determined by the Commission” should be added to the language of Rule 146(b)(2). 48 The Commission believes that this change is unnecessary because Section 18 clearly states that “covered securities” are those the Commission determines are substantially similar to the Named Markets. Similarly, Rule 146 specifies that it is the Commission that has found that listed exchanges, or segments thereof, have listing standards substantially similar to those of the Named Markets. The Commission also notes that since this rule has been in effect, the problem described by the commenter has not occurred and does not believe that further amendment to the language of the rule is required at this time. 48 *See* Kennedy Letter, supra note 10. B. Changes to Exchanges” Names The Commission is amending Rule 146(b), as proposed, to reflect the following name changes: • Sections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Rule 146 use the term “Nasdaq/NMS” to refer to the National Market System of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. As noted above, on July 1, 2006, what was the National Market System of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC became known as the Nasdaq Global Market. 49 The Commission is making a conforming change to Rule 146(b). 49 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53799 and 54071, *supra* note 1. • Rule 146(b)(1)(i) refers to the Pacific Exchange Incorporated. In April 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Incorporated was renamed NYSE Arca, Inc. 50 The Commission is making a conforming change to Rule 146(b). 50 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53615 (April 7, 2006), 71 FR 19226 (April 13, 2006). • Rule 146(b)(1)(iv) refers to the International Securities Exchange, Incorporated. In September 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Incorporated was renamed the International Securities Exchange, LLC. The Commission is making a conforming change to Rule 146(b). • Finally, the Commission is amending paragraph (1)(ii) of Rule 146(b) to reflect the legal name of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. 51 51 In the Proposing Release, the Nasdaq Global Market and the Nasdaq Capital Market were inadvertently referred to as the Nasdaq National Global Market and the Nasdaq National Capital Market. Those typographical errors are corrected in this adopting release. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply because the proposed amendment to Rule 146(b) does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements or other collection of information, which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* V. Cost-Benefit Analysis Congress amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to exempt covered securities from state registration requirements. These securities are listed, or authorized for listing, on the Named Markets or any other national securities exchange determined by the Commission to have substantially similar listing standards to the Named Markets. 52 Consistent with statutory authority, the Commission has determined that the listing standards for securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM are substantially similar to those of either the Amex or Nasdaq/NGM. Securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM therefore would be covered securities subject only to federal regulation. 52 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(B). By exempting securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM from state law registration requirements, the Commission expects that the listing process for those securities will become easier as one layer of regulation is eliminated. Moreover, the Commission also expects adoption of the rule will reduce the administrative burden the issuers of covered securities face inasmuch as compliance with state blue sky law requirements is preempted. 53 The Commission solicited comments concerning the costs and benefits associated with the proposal and received two comments. The commenters believe that the proposed amendments to Rule 146(b) to provide “covered securities” status for securities authorized for listing, or approved for listing on the NCM, should reduce substantial costs for investors, given those securities would be exempted from state law registration requirements. 54 53 Several commenters also expect this outcome. *See* ABA Committee April 3rd Letter; ABA Committee December 20th Letter; and Kennedy Letter, *supra* note 10. 54 *See* ABA Committee December 20th Letter and Kennedy Letter, *supra* note 10. The Commission also believes that the amendment to Rule 146(b) will permit Nasdaq to compete with other markets whose listed securities are exempt from state law registration requirements for new securities products and listings. This result has the potential to enhance competition and, potentially, liquidity, thus benefiting market participants and the public. The Commission does not believe that there are any significant costs to investors associated with the preemption of state registration requirements for securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM. The Commission notes that there may be some cost to investors through the loss of benefits of state registration and oversight, although the cost is difficult to quantify. Furthermore, the Commission believes that Congress contemplated these costs to the economic benefits of exempting covered securities from state regulation. VI. Consideration of Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation As required under the Securities Act, 55 the Commission considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. National securities exchanges compete for the listing of securities. Thus, the Commission believes that amending Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the NCM as covered securities will offer potential benefits for investors because it would facilitate the ability of Nasdaq to compete for listings, which will potentially increase competition and enhance the overall liquidity, and thus the efficiency of the U.S. securities markets. The Commission also believes that the rule will serve to reduce the cost of raising capital because it will streamline the registration process for issuers listing on the NCM. In addition, the Commission believes that the rule amendment, consistent with Congressional action, is designed to promote efficiency by removing a layer of duplicative regulation. The Commission solicited comments on the amendment's effect on competition, efficiency, and capital formation. Commenters generally believed that this proposal would improve efficiency and facilitate capital formation by eliminating state registration for issuers seeking to list their securities on the NCM. 56 The Commission also believes that the amendment to Rule 146(b) will permit Nasdaq to compete with other markets whose securities are exempt from state law registration requirements for new securities products and listings. Finally, the amendment to Rule 146(b) will not impair efficiency, competition, and capital formation because it will impose no recordkeeping or compliance burdens, but will provide a limited purpose exemption under the federal securities laws. Thus, the Commission concludes that the amendment to Rule 146(b) would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 55 15 U.S.C. 77b(b). 56 *See* ABA Committee April 3rd Letter; ABA Committee December 20th Letter; and Kennedy Letter, *supra* note 10. VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Commission has certified, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 57 that the amendment to Rule 146 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification was incorporated into the Proposing Release. The Commission solicited comments as to the nature of any impact on small entities, and generally on whether the amendment to Rule 146(b) could have an effect that has not been considered. No comments were received. 57 5 U.S.C. 605(b). VIII. Statutory Authority The Commission is amending Rule 146 pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, 58 particularly Sections 18(b)(1)(B) and 19(a). 59 58 15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* 59 15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(1)(B) and 77s(a). Text of the Rule List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 230 Securities. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the *Code of Federal Regulations* is amended as follows: PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 1. The general authority citation for part 230 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78 *l,* 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w, 78 *ll* (d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 230.146 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) to read as follows: § 230.146 Rules under Section 18 of the Act.
(b)* * *
(1)For purposes of Section 18(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77r), the Commission finds that the following national securities exchanges, or segments or tiers thereof, have listing standards that are substantially similar to those of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”), or the National Market System of the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq/NGM”), and that securities listed, or authorized for listing, on such exchanges shall be deemed covered securities:
(i)Tier I of the NYSE Arca, Inc.;
(ii)Tier I of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
(iii)The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated;
(iv)Options listed on the International Securities Exchange, LLC; and
(v)The Nasdaq Capital Market.
(2)The designation of securities in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through
(v)of this section as covered securities is conditioned on such exchanges’ listing standards (or segments or tiers thereof) continuing to be substantially similar to those of the NYSE, Amex, or Nasdaq/NGM. Dated: April 18, 2007. By the Commission. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7713 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P 72 78 Tuesday, April 24, 2007 Presidential Documents Part IV The President Proclamation 8127—Small Business Week, 2007 Proclamation 8128—Dutch-American Friendship Day, 2007 Proclamation 8129—National Day of Prayer, 2007 Title 3— The President Proclamation 8127 of April 19, 2007 Small Business Week, 2007 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation During Small Business Week, we honor small business owners and workers for their important role in ensuring that America remains the economic leader of the world. Every day, our Nation's small businesses help enhance the lives of our citizens and lead the way in an economy distinguished by low unemployment, sustained job creation, and one of the fastest growth rates of any major industrialized nation. To help extend our Nation's prosperity, my Administration is committed to continuing the pro-growth economic policies that encourage enterprise and make America the best place in the world to do business. Our economy has created more than 7 million new jobs since major tax relief was enacted in 2003, and we are working to keep taxes low to help small businesses continue to expand. We are taking steps to make health care more affordable and available for small business owners and employees by encouraging Health Savings Accounts, supporting Association Health Plans legislation, and proposing a standard tax deduction for health insurance. My Administration is also committed to ensuring that small businesses can compete in the global economy. By continuing to expand trade, we can open new markets for American products, lower prices for consumers, and create better American jobs. Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities and towns across the country, and we salute small business owners, entrepreneurs, and employees for enhancing our communities and expanding opportunities for all. The hard work and ingenuity of our Nation's small business men and women are helping to sustain America's economic strength. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 22 through April 28, 2007, as Small Business Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs that celebrate the accomplishments of small business owners and their employees and encourage the development of new small businesses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 07-2057 Filed 4-23-07; 9:29 am]
Connectionstraces to 43
Traces to 43 documents
CFR
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors.§ 50.44
- Definitions.§ 50.2
- Accident source term.§ 50.67
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Definition of "short sale" and marking requirements.§ 242.200
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Categorical exclusions not subject to the Federal laws and authorities cited in § 50.4.§ 50.19
- Rules under section 18 of the Act.§ 230.146
U.S. Code
- Establishment§ 460bb
- Accounts and records§ 80a–30
- Records and reports§ 78q
- Reports by investment advisers§ 80b–4
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking and One Federal Decision§ 139
- Standards§ 109
- Public hearings§ 128
- Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites§ 303
- Landscaping and scenic enhancement§ 319
- Utilization of State services; expenditure of funds§ 757
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Transferred or Omitted§ 470
- Protection and preservation of traditional religions of Native Americans§ 1996
- Omitted§ 61
- Project grants and contracts for family planning services§ 300
- National Highway System§ 103
- Exemption for passenger motor vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices§ 33106
- Repealed. Pub. L. 112–141, div. E, title II, § 52011(c)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 895]§ 111
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Definitions§ 601
- Administrative provisions§ 3535
- Exemption from State regulation of securities offerings§ 77r
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation§ 77b
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Short title§ 77a
42 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 2
- 10 CFR 50
- Pub. L. 104-333
- 110 Stat. 4097
- 20 CFR 230
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 17 CFR 270.31
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 42 USC 4321-4351
- 42 USC 7401-7671(q)
- 16 USC 1531-1544
- 16 USC 661-667(d)
- 16 USC 469-469(c)
- 25 USC 3001-3013
- 42 USC 2000(d)
- 7 USC 4201-4209
- 33 USC 1251-1377
- 16 USC 1451-1465
- 16 USC 4601-4604
- 33 USC 401-406
- 42 USC 4001-4128
- 42 USC 9601-9675
- Pub. L. 99-499
- 42 USC 6901-6992(k)
- 49 CFR 543
- 49 CFR 541
- 49 CFR 543.7
- 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4)
- 49 CFR 543.7(f)
- 49 CFR 541.5
- 49 CFR 1.50
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 50 CFR 660
- 40 CFR 600
- 24 CFR 200
- 24 CFR 5
- 24 CFR 10
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 12 USC 1702-1715z
- 17 CFR 230
+ 2 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of cancellation of April 24, 2007 public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities (EC) for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a result of EU enlargement
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 50
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-333
Cites 85 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources