Notices. Notice of technical correction

39,960 words·~182 min read·/register/2007/06/07/07-2833

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Exemption Application Numbers: D-11393 and D-11394] Proposed Individual Exemptions for Paul Niednagel IRAs and Lynne Niednagel IRAs (Collectively, the IRAs), Located in Laguna Niguel, CA AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor (the Department). ACTION: Notice of technical correction. On June 1, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 30637) a Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) which would permit the purchase (the Purchase) by the respective IRAs of Paul and Lynne Niednagel (the Account Holders) of certain ownership interests (the Units) from Pacific Island Investment Partners, LLC (Pacific Island) (the issuer of the Units), an entity which is indirectly controlled by Daniel and Stephen Niednagel (the Principals), both of whom are lineal descendents of the Account Holders and therefore disqualified persons with respect to the IRAs.

The Notice was filed on behalf of the Account Holders. With respect to the information contained in the Summary of Facts and Representations section of the Notice, footnote number 4 located at the bottom of the second column on page 30638 should be corrected to read as follows: “** The Department notes that a divergence of interests may develop over time between

(1)the IRAs and the IRA fiduciaries in their capacities as individuals, or

(2)the IRAs and other persons in which the IRA fiduciaries, in their individual capacities, may have an interest. In the event that such a divergence of interests develops, the IRA fiduciaries would be required to take steps to eliminate the conflict of interest in order to avoid engaging in a prohibited transaction.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Judge or Mr. Laurence Lux, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC at

(202)693-8339 or

(202)693-8555, respectively (these are not toll-free numbers). Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of June, 2007. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-10917 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 18, 2007. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 18, 2007. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of May 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix-AA [Petitions instituted between 5/21/07 and 5/25/07] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 61544 Bodiform, Inc.

(Wkrs)Hialeah, FL 05/21/07 05/16/07 61545 Bell Sponging Company, Inc. (UNITE) Allentown, PA 05/21/07 05/18/07 61546 Sportable Scoreboards

(Wkrs)Murray, KY 05/21/07 05/18/07 61547 McMurray Fabrics, Inc.

(Wkrs)Lincolnton, NC 05/21/07 05/16/07 61548 CS Tool Engineering

(Comp)Cedar Springs, MI 05/21/07 05/18/07 61549 Molex, Inc. (State) Downers Grove, IL 05/21/07 05/17/07 61550 Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc.

(Comp)Summerville, SC 05/21/07 04/30/07 61551 Tech-Pak, Inc.

(Wkrs)Hudson, NC 05/21/07 05/17/07 61552 Hershey Chocolate and Confectionary Corp. (State) Oakdale, CA 05/22/07 05/21/07 61553 Honeywell Resins and Chemicals

(Comp)Anderson, SC 05/22/07 05/21/07 61554 SemiTool (State) Kalispell, MT 05/22/07 05/18/07 61555 National Braid Manufacturing Company (UNITE) Long Island City, NY 05/22/07 05/15/07 61556 Lexington Home Brand #Plant 98

(Wkrs)Thomasville, NC 05/22/07 05/17/07 61557 Alcoa ATS

(USW)Auburn, IN 05/22/07 05/26/07 61558 Seagate Technology, LLC

(Comp)Longmont, CO 05/22/07 05/21/07 61559 Thunder Bay Manufacturing Corporation

(Comp)Alpena, MI 05/22/07 05/21/07 61560 Arvin Meritor

(UAW)Heath, OH 05/23/07 05/15/07 61561 R-Tis-Tic Mold Incorporated

(Comp)St. Clair, MI 05/23/07 05/16/07 61562 Quebecor World Chicago (Union) Elk Grove, IL 05/23/07 05/15/07 61563 Carrier Access Corporation

(Wkrs)Bethel, CT 05/23/07 05/22/07 61564 Metal Powder Products

(Wkrs)St. Mary's, PA 05/23/07 05/15/07 61565 Avon Automotive

(Comp)Manton, MI 05/23/07 05/22/07 61566 Borg-Warner

(UAW)Muncie, IN 05/23/07 05/22/07 61567 Oregon Woodworking Company

(Comp)Bend, OR 05/23/07 05/21/07 61568 Tenneco Inc., Walker Manufacturing

(Comp)Harrisonburg, VA 05/23/07 05/18/07 61569 Dura Automotive

(Comp)Milan, TN 05/23/07 05/11/07 61570 HDM Furniture Industries, Inc.

(Wkrs)High Point, NC 05/23/07 05/17/07 61571 Bristol Babcock Inc. (State) Watertown, CT 05/24/07 05/23/07 61572 Meggit Defense Systems (State) Minneapolis, MN 05/24/07 05/23/07 61573 MTD Southwest Inc.

(Comp)Tempe, AZ 05/24/07 05/23/07 61574 Century Truss Company (State) Brighton, MI 05/24/07 05/23/07 61575 Herman and Company, Inc.

(Wkrs)Lebanon, PA 05/24/07 05/17/07 61576 Paper Magic Group, Inc.

(Comp)Scranton, PA 05/24/07 05/17/07 61577 J.P. Morgan Chase

(Wkrs)Belleville, MI 05/24/07 05/22/07 61578 Visteon (IUECWA) Connersville, IN 05/24/07 05/23/07 61579 Jockey International, Inc.

(Comp)Millen, GA 05/25/07 03/22/07 61580 Comau, Inc.

(Comp)Southfield, MI 05/25/07 05/24/07 61581 Keykert USA Inc. (State) Webberville, MI 05/25/07 05/24/07 61582 Xyratex International Ltd

(Wkrs)Scotts Valley, CA 05/25/07 05/23/07 61583 Margaret O'Leary Inc.

(Wkrs)San Francisco, CA 05/25/07 05/22/07 61584 Randstad Inhouse Services

(Wkrs)Newton, IA 05/25/07 05/21/07 61585 Hunter Douglas (aka HD Window Fashions, Inc.) (State) Los Angeles, CA 05/25/07 04/23/07 61586 Reis Associated Co. Inc.

(Comp)Ballwin, MO 05/25/07 05/15/07 61587 Sun Spring America, Inc.

(Wkrs)Henderson, KY 05/25/07 05/16/07 [FR Doc. E7-11021 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,270] CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Armstrong's, CNH Meridian, FBG Service Corporation, Industrial Distribution Group, Jim Buch's Repair Services, Jon Industrial Lube, Kelly Services, UTI Integrated Logistics, Anixter Fasteners and Rhodes Welding Belleville, PA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 2, 2007, applicable to workers of CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant, including on-site leased workers from Armstrong's, CNH Meridian, FBG Service Corporation, Industrial Distribution Group, Jim Buch's Repair Services, Jon Industrial Lube, Kelly Services, and UTI Integrated Logistics, Belleville, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 17, 2007 (72 FR 27855). The certification was amended on May 14, 2007 to include leased workers of Anixter Fasteners working on-site at the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29279) At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of agricultural machinery, specifically front-end loaders, hay and forage equipment (conditioners, rakes, forage harvesters, headers, and windrowers), bale wagons, and spreaders). New information shows that leased workers of Rhodes Welding were employed on-site at the Belleville, Pennsylvania location of CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Rhodes Welding working on-site at CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant, Belleville, Pennsylvania. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant, Belleville, Pennsylvania who were adversely affected by a shift in production to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,270 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of CNH America LLC, Belleville Manufacturing Plant, including on-site leased workers of Armstrong's, CNH Meridian, FBG Service Corporation, Industrial Distribution Group, Jim Buch's Repair Services, Jon Industrial Lube, Kelly Services, UTI Integrated Logistics, Anixter Fasteners, and Rhodes Welding, Belleville, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 9, 2006, through May 2, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of May 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11031 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,018] International Truck and Engine Corporation Truck Development and Technical Center, Ft. Wayne, IN; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration of Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance By letter dated May 7, 2007, the United Auto Workers Local 2911 requested administrative reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was signed on April 4, 2007, and was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20370). The workers of International Truck and Engine Corporation, Truck Development and Technical Center, Ft. Wayne, Indiana were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)on April 4, 2007. The initial ATAA investigation determined that the skills of the subject worker group are easily transferable to other positions in the local area. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided sufficient information confirming that the skills of the workers at the subject firm are not easily transferable in the local commuting area. Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable. A significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of International Truck and Engine Corporation, Truck Development and Technical Center, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 22, 2006 through April 4, 2009, are eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of May, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11028 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,835, TA-W-60,835A, TA-W-60,835B, TA-W-60,835C, TA-W-60,835D, TA-W-60,835E] Kimberly Clark Corporation, Kimberly Clark World-Wide, Neenah, WI; Kimberly Clark Global Sales, Roswell, GA; Kimberly Clark World-Wide, Roswell, GA; Kimberly Clark Global Sales, Knoxville, TN; Kimberly Clark World-Wide, Knoxville, TN; Kimberly Clark Global Sales, Irving, TX; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated April 30, 2007, counsel for Kimberly Clark Corporation (the subject firm) requested administrative reconsideration by the Department of Labor (Department) of the Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department's negative determination was issued on March 30, 2007. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17938). Workers provided administrative support to various affiliated facilities. The initial investigation found that a majority of the administrative work done by the petitioning worker groups is not directed toward support of production taking place at certified affiliated production facilities and that a preponderance of the separations are the result of the subject firm's decision to outsource positions outside of the corporation. The negative determination stated that worker separations are not caused by imports but by the subject firm's decision to outsource administrative support positions, and stated that the separations cannot be directly attributed to imports or a shift in production of an article. In the request for reconsideration, counsel alleged that the petitioning worker groups either had a “direct link to” or directly supported production at affiliated certified production facilities. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that further investigation is appropriate. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11025 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,962 and TA-W-60,962A] Mitchel Manufacturing, a Division of Quaker Lace, Honea Path, SC; Mitchel Manufacturing, a Division of Quaker Lace Showroom/Sales Office, New York, NY; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 23, 2007, applicable to workers of Mitchel Manufacturing, a division of Quaker Lace, Honea Path, South Carolina. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10561). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of lace curtains and tablecloths. New information shows that a worker separation occurred at the Showroom/Sales Office, New York, New York facility of the subject firm. The New York, New York location served as the showroom/sales office for the subject firms' production facility in Honea Path, South Carolina. Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include a worker of the Showroom/Sales Office, New York, New York location of Mitchel Manufacturing, a division of Quaker Lace. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Mitchel Manufacturing, a division of Quaker Lace, Honea Path, South Carolina and the Showroom/Sales Office, New York, New York who were adversely affected by increased company imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,962 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Mitchel Manufacturing, a division of Quaker Lace Honea Path, South Carolina (TA-W-60,962) and Mitchel Manufacturing, a division of Quaker Lace, Showroom/Sales Office, New York, New York (TA-W-60,962A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 6, 2006, through February 23, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of May 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11027 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,129] Romar Textile Co., Inc., Wampum, PA; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application postmarked April 16, 2007, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on March 29, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17938). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that workers of the subject firm do not produce an article or support production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th of May, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11029 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,822] Shiloh Industries, Parma, OH; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Shiloh Industries, Parma, Ohio. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. *TA-W-60,822; Shiloh Industries, Parma, Ohio (May 22, 2007).* Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of May 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11023 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,827] Sun Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, CO; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated April 16, 2007, a worker requested administrative reconsideration by the Department of Labor (Department) of the Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was issued on March 14, 2007. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15168). The workers supported production at an affiliated facility in Puerto Rico. The negative determination was based on the Department's findings that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not shift work performed in Louisville, Colorado abroad and did not shift production work from Puerto Rico to a foreign country. The determination also stated that the subject firm sold the Puerto Rico facility to another company. In the request for reconsideration, the workers alleged that the subject firm shifted production and support functions abroad. Following the issuance of the negative determination, the Department received new information regarding activities at the subject firm and the affiliated Puerto Rico production facility. Following a careful review of the workers' request for reconsideration and the above-referenced new information, the Department has determined that further investigation is appropriate. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11024 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,568] Tenneco Inc., Walker Manufacturing, Harrisonburg, VA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 23, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Tenneco Inc., Walker Manufacturing, Harrisonburg, Virginia. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of May, 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11020 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,879] Via Information Tools, Inc., Troy, MI; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Via Information Tools, Inc., Troy, Michigan. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-60,879; Via Information Tools, Inc., Troy, Michigan (May 22, 2007). Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of May 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11026 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of May 21, 2007 through May 25, 2007. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3)Either—

(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,173; Viking Tool and Drill, Inc., St Paul, MN:March 22, 2006.* *TA-61,181; Pine River Plastics, Inc., Westminster, SC:March 22, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,209; Reum Corporation, On-Site Leased Workers of QPS Companies and Aerotek Staffing, Waukegan, IL:March 28, 2006.* *TA-61,340; Tube Specialties Co., Inc., Troutdale, OR:April 18, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,389; Vaungarde Acquisition, LLC, Owosso, MI: April 18, 2006.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,434; Judith Leiber LLC, New York, NY: April 18, 2006* *TA-61,439; Rugg Manufacturing Company, Inc.,Greenfield, MA: May 1, 2006.* *TA-61,460; Lozier Corporation, On-Site Lease Workers From Gregg Staffing Services, Pittsburgh, PA: May 4, 2006.* *TA-61,478; Royal Home Fashions, a subsidiary of Croscill Inc., Plant 8, Oxford, NC: May 28, 2007.* *TA-61,543; KMC Holding LLC, dba Kennedy Manufacturing Company, On-Site leased workers of Manpower, Van Wert, OH: May 10, 2006.* *TA-61,224; Opportunity, Inc., Medical Division, Highland Park, IL: April 2, 2006.* *TA-61,313; Circa 1801 Doblin, a subsidiary of Joan Fabrics Corp., EBM Textiles, LLC Division, Connelly Springs,NC: April 13, 2006.* *TA-61,350; Amsea, Inc., Fenton, MI: April 1, 2006.* *TA-61,449; Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holding Group, On-Site Leased Workers of Securitas, Bartech etc.,Wichita Falls, TX: April 30, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,231; AAA Human Capital and Staffmark Investment, LLC, Working On-Site at Lego Systems, Inc., Enfield, CT:March 30, 2006.* *TA-61,316; Associated Furniture Manufacturers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sklar Peppler of America,Portland, OR: April 13, 2006.* * TA-61,325; Metro Furniture, Metal Frame Department and Upholstery Department, Oakland, CA: April 17, 2006. * *TA-61,326; Torque Traction Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Dana Corporation, Automotive Systems Group, Syracuse, IN: April 12, 2006.* *TA-61,354; J.A.M. Plastics, Inc., (Formerly CIPI, Inc.), Anaheim, CA: April 17, 2006.* *TA-61,402; Advanced Decorative Systems, Inc., dba Kaumagraph Flint Corporation, Millington, MI:April 26, 2006.* *TA-61,470; General Motors Corporation, General Motors Springhill Mfg., Springhill, TN: May 4, 2006.* *TA-61,471; Bond Cote Corporation, Fiber Loc Plant #2, Knitting Department, Dublin, VA: May 1, 2006.* *TA-61,527; Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Kentucky, Inc., Travel Trailer Division, Campbellsville, KY: May 17,2006.* *TA-61,534; Merkle Korff Industries, Inc., Richland Center Plant, Richland Center, WI: May 16, 2006.* *TA-61,558; Seagate Technology, LLC, Longmont Division, Longmont, CO: May 21, 2006.* *TA-61,337; MYOB US, Product Development, Denville, NJ:April 18, 2006.* *TA-61,380; Briggs and Stratton Corporation, Engine Power Products Groups, On-Site Leased Workers of From Adecco, Murray, KY: March 30, 2006.* *TA-61,393; Best Artex, LLC, Highland, IL: April 26, 2006.* *TA-61,395; Federal Mogul Corporation, Systems Protection Group, On-Site Leased Workers from Kelly Services,Exton, PA: April 27, 2006.* *TA-61,428; Dana Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Technologies And System Operations, Product Service Center,Statesville, NC: April 30, 2006.* *TA-61,516; Best Textiles International, Ltd., Best Artex, LLC, West Point, MS: May 15, 2006.* *TA-61,523; Central Brass Manufacturing Co., Currently Known as C.B.N. Supply, Cleveland, OH: April 27, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-61,312; Ashdale Foam, Inc., Conover, NC: April 10, 2006.* *TA-61,401; Victor Plastics, Inc., Kalona Division, On-Site Leased Workers of Kelly Services, Kalona, IA:April 26, 2006.* *TA-61,491; Decor Originals, Inc., Conover, NC: May 9, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion

(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion

(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-61,173; Viking Tool and Drill, Inc., St. Paul, MN.* *TA-61,181; Pine River Plastics, Inc., Westminster, SC.* *TA-61,209; Reum Corporation, On-Site Leased Workers of QPS Companies and Aerotek Staffing, Waukegan, IL.* *TA-61,340; Tube Specialties Co., Inc., Troutdale, OR.* *TA-61,389; Vaungarde Acquisition, LLC, Owosso, MI.* The Department has determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-61,135; Williamson and Company, Greer, SC.* *TA-61,444; Biltbest Products, Inc., Sainte Genevieve, MO.* *TA-61,525; Ametek, Commercial Motor Division, Racine, WI.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-61,189; Analog Devices, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-61,256; E.B.I. Holding, Inc., a subsidiary of Biomet, Inc., Allendale, NJ.* *TA-61,317; Spacelabs Healthcare LLC, Spacelabs Medical, aka Delmar Reynolds Medical, Inc., Irvine, CA.* *TA-61,358; Masonite Door Fabrication Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Masonite International, Toledo, OH.* *TA-61,374; Seaswirl Boats, Inc., a subsidiary of Genmar Holdings, Inc., Culver, OR.* *TA-61,227; Acument Global Technologies Camar, Decorah, IA.* *TA-61,436; U.P. Plastics, Inc., Baraga, MI.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-61,382; Tandem Enterprises, Inc., Weslaco, TX.* *TA-61,473; ICT Group, Inc., Dubois, PA.* *TA-61,488; Webb Furniture Plant #1, Galax, VA.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of May 21 through May 25, 2007. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: June 1, 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11022 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,232] Wheatland Tube Co., Wheatland, PA; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Wheatland Tube Co., Wheatland, Pennsylvania. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. *TA-W-61,232; Wheatland Tube Co., Wheatland, Pennsylvania (May 22, 2007).* Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of May 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-11030 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-400-LR; ASLBP No. 07-855-02-LR-BD01] Carolina Power & Light Company; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29,1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) A Licensing Board is being established pursuant to a March 20, 2007 Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (72 FR 13,139) regarding the November 16, 2006 application for renewal of Operating License No. NPF-63, which authorizes the Carolina Power & Light Company to operate the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 at 2900 megawatts thermal. The Carolina Power & Light Company renewal application seeks to extend the current operating license for the facility, which expires on October 24, 2026, for an additional twenty years. This proceeding concerns the May 18, 2007 petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing filed by John D. Runkle, Esquire, on behalf of the North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Inc., and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Inc. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Ann Marshall Young, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Peter S. Lam, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Alice C. Mignerey, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-11004 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-387-OLA and 50-388-OLA; ASLBP No. 07-854-01-OLA-BD01] PPL Susquehanna LLC; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29,1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2). This proceeding concerns a May 11, 2007 Petition to Intervene/Request for Hearing submitted by Eric Joseph Epstein in response to a March 13, 2007 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing (72 FR 11,383, 11,392). The Petition to Intervene/Request for Hearing challenges the request of PPL Susquehanna LLC to amend the operating license for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, to increase thermal power to 3,952 megawatts thermal, which is 20% above the original rated thermal power of 3,293 megawatts thermal, and approximately 13% above the current rated thermal power of 3,489 megawatts thermal. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Lester S. Rubenstein, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-11008 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-9; EA-07-124] In the Matter of Department of Energy—Idaho Operations Office Fort Saint Vrain Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of order imposing fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements for unescorted access to certain spent fuel storage facilities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone:

(301)492-3316; fax number:

(301)492-3348; e-mail: *lrw@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Fort Saint Vrain Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I The NRC has issued a specific license, to the Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA)of 1954 as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149, of the AEA, to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)identification and criminal history records check of any individual who is permitted unescorted access to radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Commission, which the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks. The Commission has determined that spent fuel storage facilities meet the requisite threshold warranting these additional measures. Though a rulemaking to implement the fingerprinting provisions of the EPAct is currently underway, the NRC has decided to implement this particular requirement by Order, in part, prior to the completion of the rulemaking because a deliberate malevolent act by an individual with unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities has a potential to result in significant adverse impacts to the public health and safety or the common defense and security. Those exempted from fingerprinting requirements under 10 CFR 73.61 [72 FR 4945 (February 2, 2007)] are also exempt from the fingerprinting requirements under this Order. In addition, individuals who have had a favorable decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five

(5)years, or individuals who have active federal security clearance (provided in either case that they make available the appropriate documentation), have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again. Also, individuals who have been fingerprinted and granted access to Safeguards Information

(SGI)by the reviewing official under the previous fingerprinting order, (Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information( (EA-06-298) do not need to be fingerprinted again. Subsequent to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC issued security Orders requiring certain entities to implement Interim Compensatory Measures

(ICMs)and Additional Security Measures

(ASMs)for certain radioactive material. The requirements imposed by these Orders and the measures licensees have developed to comply with these Orders, were designated by the NRC as SGI and were not released to the public. These Orders included a local criminal history records check to determine trustworthiness and reliability of individuals seeking unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. “Access” means that an individual could exercise some physical control over the material or device. In accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing FBI criminal history records check requirements, as set forth in the Order for all individuals allowed unescorted access to protected areas, secure areas, and critical target areas, for certain spent fuel facility licensees. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. II Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 51, 53, 63, 81, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, Parts 72 and 73, *It is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that your specific license is modified as follows: A. DOE-ID shall, within twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order, establish and maintain a fingerprinting program that meets the requirements of the Attachment to this Order, for unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. B. DOE-ID shall, in writing, within twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order, notify the Commission:

(1)Of receipt and confirmation that compliance with the Order will be achieved,

(2)if unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment, or

(3)if compliance with any of the requirements are unnecessary in its specific circumstances. The notification shall provide DOE-ID's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. C. In accordance with the NRC's “Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information,” only an NRC-approved reviewing official shall review the results of a FBI criminal history records check. The reviewing official shall determine whether an individual may have, or continue to have, unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history records check are not required for individuals who are exempted from fingerprinting requirements under 10 CFR 73.61 [72 FR 4945 (February 2, 2007)]. In addition, individuals who have had a favorably decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five

(5)years, or have an active Federal security clearance (provided in each case that the appropriate documentation is made available to DOE-ID's reviewing official), have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again. D. Fingerprints shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in the Attachment to this Order. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and granted access to SGI by the reviewing official, under the NRC's Order No. EA-06-298 do not need to be fingerprinted again for purposes of authorizing unescorted access. No person may have access to SGI or unescorted access to any radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC if the NRC has determined, in accordance with its administrative review process based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history records check, either that the person may not have access to SGI or that the person may not have unescorted access to radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC. E. DOE-ID may allow any individual who currently has unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities, in accordance with the ICM and ASM Security Orders, to continue to have unescorted access, pending a decision by the reviewing official (based on fingerprinting, an FBI criminal history records check, and a trustworthiness and reliability determination) that the individual may continue to have unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. DOE-ID shall complete implementation of the requirements of the Attachment to this Order within ninety

(90)days from the date of issuance of this Order. DOE-ID responses to Condition B. shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, licensee responses are security-related information or official use only and shall be properly marked. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by DOE-ID. III In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, DOE-ID must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing regarding this Order, within twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time, to either submit an answer, or request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law for which DOE-ID, or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; and to DOE-ID, if the answer or hearing request is by an individual other than DOE-ID. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-1101, or via e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725, or via e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than DOE-ID requests a hearing, that person shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by DOE-ID or an individual whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of a hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), DOE-ID may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed, or sooner, move that the presiding officer set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions, as specified above in Section III, shall be final twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated: May 29, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment—Requirements for Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks of Individuals When Licensee's Reviewing Official Is Determining Unescorted Access To Spent Fuel Storage Facilities General Requirements Licensees shall comply with the following requirements of this Attachment. 1. Each licensee subject to the provisions of this Attachment shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. The licensee shall review and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)and ensure that the provisions contained in the subject Order and this Attachment are satisfied. 2. The licensee shall notify each affected individual that the fingerprints will be used to secure a review of his/her criminal history record and inform the individual of the procedures for revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as specified in the “Right to Correct and Complete Information” section of this Attachment. 3. Fingerprints for unescorted access need not be taken if an employed individual (e.g., a licensee employee, contractor, manufacturer, or supplier) is relieved from the fingerprinting requirement by 10 CFR 73.61 for unescorted access, has had a favorably decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five

(5)years, or has an active Federal security clearance. Written confirmation from the Agency/employer that granted the Federal security clearance or reviewed the criminal history records check must be provided. The licensee must retain this documentation for a period of three

(3)years from the date the individual no longer requires unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility associated with the licensee's activities. 4. All fingerprints obtained by the licensee, pursuant to this Order, must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the FBI. 5. The licensee shall review the information received from the FBI and consider it, in conjunction with the trustworthiness and reliability requirements established by the previous ICM and ASM Security Orders, in making a determination whether to grant, or continue to allow, unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. 6. The licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a criminal history records check solely for the purpose of determining an individual's suitability for unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. 7. The licensee shall document the basis for its determination whether to grant, or continue to allow, unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. Prohibitions A licensee shall not base a final determination to deny an individual access to the spent fuel storage facility solely on information received from the FBI, involving an arrest more than one

(1)year old, for which there is no information as to disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal of the charge or an acquittal. A licensee shall not use information received from a criminal history records check obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the licensee use the information in any way that would discriminate among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, or age. Procedures for Processing Fingerprint Checks For the purpose of complying with this Order, licensees shall, using an appropriate method listed in 10 CFR 73.4, submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Division of Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T-6E46, one completed, legible standard fingerprint card (Form FD-258, ORIMDNRCOOOZ) or, where practicable, other fingerprint records for each individual seeking unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility, to the Director of the Division of Facilities and Security, marked for the attention of the Division's Criminal History Check Section. Copies of these forms may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by calling

(301)415-5877, or via e-mail to *forms@nrc.gov* . Practicable alternative formats are set forth in 10 CFR 73.4. The licensee shall establish procedures to ensure that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or incomplete cards. The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one resubmission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free resubmission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the resubmission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee. Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check, cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable to “U.S. NRC.” [For guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at

(301)415-7404]. Combined payment for multiple applications is acceptable. The application fee (currently $27) is the sum of the user fee charged by the FBI for each fingerprint card or other fingerprint record submitted by the NRC on behalf of a licensee, and an NRC processing fee, which covers administrative costs associated with NRC handling of licensee fingerprint submissions. The Commission will directly notify licensees, who are subject to this regulation of any fee changes. The Commission will forward, to the submitting licensee, all data received from the FBI as a result of the licensee's application(s) for criminal history records checks, including the FBI fingerprint record. Right To Correct and Complete Information Prior to any final adverse determination, the licensee shall make available, to the individual, the contents of any criminal records, obtained from the FBI, for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information. Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this notification must be maintained by the licensee for a period of one

(1)year from the date of the notification. If, after reviewing the record, an individual believes that the record is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in the record, the individual may initiate challenge procedures. These procedures include either direct application, by the individual challenging the record, to the agency (i.e., law enforcement agency) that contributed the questioned information, or direct challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on the criminal history record to the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Division, Washington, DC 20537-9700 (as set forth in 28 CFR 16.30 through 16.34). In the latter case, the FBI forwards the challenge to the agency that submitted the data and requests that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry. Upon receipt of an official communication directly from the agency that contributed the original information, the FBI Identification Division makes any changes necessary, in accordance with the information supplied by that agency. The licensee must allow at least ten

(10)days for an individual to initiate an action challenging the results of an FBI criminal history records check after the record is made available for his/her review. The licensee may make a final determination for unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility based on the criminal history records check, only upon receipt of the FBI's ultimate confirmation or correction of the record. Upon a final adverse determination for unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility, the licensee shall provide the individual its documented basis for denial. During this review process for assuring correct and complete information, unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility shall not be granted to an individual. Protection of Information 1. Each licensee that obtains a criminal history records check for an individual, pursuant to this Order, shall establish and maintain a system of files and procedures for protecting the record and the personal information from unauthorized disclosure. 2. The licensee may not disclose the record nor personal information collected and maintained to persons other than the subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in the process of determining unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. No individual authorized to have access to the information may redisseminate the information to any other individual who does not have a need-to-know. 3. The personal information obtained on an individual from a criminal history records check may be transferred to another licensee if the licensee holding the criminal history record receives the individual's written request to redisseminate the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable physical characteristics, for identification purposes. 4. The licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained under this section, available for examination by an authorized NRC representative, to determine compliance with the regulations and laws. 5. The licensee shall retain all fingerprint and criminal history records received from the FBI, or a copy, if the individual's file has been transferred, for three

(3)years after termination of employment or denial to unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. After the required three

(3)year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole, or in part. [FR Doc. E7-11006 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-20; EA-07-124] In the Matter of Department of Energy—Idaho Operations Office Three Mile Island Unit 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Modifying License (Effective Immediately); Nuclear Regulatory Commission AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check Requirements for Unescorted Access to Certain Spent Fuel Storage Facilities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. *Telephone:*

(301)492-3316; *fax number:*

(301)492-3348; *e-mail: lrw@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I The NRC has issued a specific license, to the Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act

(SGI)by the reviewing official under the previous fingerprinting order, “Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information” (EA-06-298) do not need to be fingerprinted again. Subsequent to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC issued security Orders requiring certain entities to implement Interim Compensatory Measures

(ICMs)and Additional Security Measures

(ASMs)for certain radioactive material. The requirements imposed by these Orders and the measures licensees have developed to comply with these Orders, were designated by the NRC as SGI and were not released to the public. These Orders included a local criminal history records check to determine trustworthiness and reliability of individuals seeking unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. “Access” means that an individual could exercise some physical control over the material or device. In accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing FBI criminal history records check requirements, as set forth in the Order for all individuals allowed unescorted access to protected areas, secure areas, and critical target areas, for certain spent fuel facility licensees. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. II Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 51, 53, 63, 81, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, Parts 72 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your specific license is modified as follows: A. DOE-ID shall, within twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order, notify the Commission:

(1)Of receipt and confirmation that compliance with the Order will be achieved,

(2)if unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment, or

(301)415-1101, or via e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov,* and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725, or via e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . If a person other than DOE-ID requests a hearing, that person shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by DOE-ID or an individual whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of a hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), DOE-ID may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed, or sooner, move that the presiding officer set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions, as specified above in Section III, shall be final twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 29th day of May 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material, Safety and Safeguards. Attachment Requirements for Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks of Individuals When Licensee's Reviewing Official Is Determining Unescorted Access to Spent Fuel Storage Facilities General Requirements Licensees shall comply with the following requirements of this Attachment. 1. Each licensee subject to the provisions of this Attachment shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. The licensee shall review and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(301)415-5877, or via e-mail to *forms@nrc.gov.* Practicable alternative formats are set forth in 10 CFR 73.4. The licensee shall establish procedures to ensure that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or incomplete cards. The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one resubmission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free resubmission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the resubmission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee. Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check, cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable to “U.S. NRC.” [For guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at

(3)years after termination of employment or denial to unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. After the required three

(3)year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole, or in part. [FR Doc. E7-11007 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-1; EA-07-124] In the Matter of General Electric Company GE Morris Operation Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check Requirements for Unescorted Access to Certain Spent Fuel Storage Facilities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone:

(301)492-3316; fax number:

(301)492-3348; e-mail: *lrw@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of GE Morris Operation

(GEMO)Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I The NRC has issued a specific license, to the General Electric Company (GE), authorizing storage of spent fuel, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA)of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149, of the AEA, to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)identification and criminal history records check of any individual who is permitted unescorted access to radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Commission, which the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks. The Commission has determined that spent fuel storage facilities meet the requisite threshold warranting these additional measures. Though a rulemaking to implement the fingerprinting provisions of the EPAct is currently underway, the NRC has decided to implement this particular requirement by Order, in part, prior to the completion of the rulemaking because a deliberate malevolent act by an individual with unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities has a potential to result in significant adverse impacts to the public health and safety or the common defense and security. Those exempted from fingerprinting requirements under 10 CFR 73.61 [72 FR 4945 (February 2, 2007)] are also exempt from the fingerprinting requirements under this Order. In addition, individuals who have had a favorably decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five

(ICMs)and Additional Security Measures

(ASMs)for certain radioactive material. The requirements imposed by these Orders and the measures licensees have developed to comply with these Orders, were designated by the NRC as SGI and were not released to the public. These Orders included a local criminal history records check to determine trustworthiness and reliability of individuals seeking unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. “Access” means that an individual could exercise some physical control over the material or device. In accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing FBI criminal history records check requirements, as set forth in the Order for all individuals allowed unescorted access to protected areas, secure areas, and critical target areas, for certain spent fuel facility licensees. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. II Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 51, 53, 63, 81, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, Parts 72 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your specific license is modified as follows: A. GE shall, within twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order, notify the Commission:

(1)Of receipt and confirmation that compliance with the Order will be achieved,

(2)if unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment, or

(3)if compliance with any of the requirements are unnecessary in its specific circumstances. The notification shall provide GE's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. C. In accordance with the NRC's “Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information,” only an NRC-approved reviewing official shall review the results of a FBI criminal history records check. The reviewing official shall determine whether an individual may have, or continue to have, unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history records check are not required for individuals that are exempted from fingerprinting requirements under 10 CFR 73.61 [72 FR 4945 (February 2, 2007)]. In addition, individuals who have had a favorably decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five

(5)years, or have an active Federal security clearance (provided in each case that the appropriate documentation is made available to GE's reviewing official), have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again. D. Fingerprints shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in the Attachment to this Order. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and granted access to SGI by the reviewing official, under the NRC's Order No. EA-06-298 do not need to be fingerprinted again for purposes of authorizing unescorted access. No person may have access to SGI or unescorted access to any radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC if the NRC has determined, in accordance with its administrative review process based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history records check, either that the person may not have access to SGI or that the person may not have unescorted access to radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC. E. GE may allow any individual who currently has unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities, in accordance with the ICM and ASM Security Orders, to continue to have unescorted access, pending a decision by the reviewing official (based on fingerprinting, an FBI criminal history records check, and a trustworthiness and reliability determination) that the individual may continue to have unescorted access to spent fuel storage facilities. GE shall complete implementation of the requirements of the Attachment to this Order within ninety

(90)days from the date of issuance of this Order. GE responses to Condition B. shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, licensee responses are security-related information or official use-only and shall be properly marked. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by GE. III In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, GE must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing regarding this Order, within twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time, to either submit an answer, or request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law for which GE, or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; and to GE, if the answer or hearing request is by an individual other than GE. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-1101, or via e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov,* and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725, or via e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than GE requests a hearing, that person shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by GE or an individual whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of a hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), GE may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed, or sooner, move that the presiding officer set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions, as specified above in Section III, shall be final twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 29th day of May 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment Requirements for Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks of Individuals When Licensee's Reviewing Official Is Determining Unescorted Access to Spent Fuel Storage Facilities General Requirements Licensees shall comply with the following requirements of this Attachment. 1. Each licensee subject to the provisions of this Attachment shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. The licensee shall review and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(301)415-5877, or via e-mail to forms@nrc.gov. Practicable alternative formats are set forth in 10 CFR 73.4. The licensee shall establish procedures to ensure that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or incomplete cards. The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one resubmission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free re-submission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the resubmission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee. Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check, cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable to “U.S. NRC.” [For guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at

(3)years after termination of employment or denial to unescorted access to the spent fuel storage facility. After the required three

(3)year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole, or in part. [FR Doc. E7-11011 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability; Draft NUREG-1574, Revision 2, “Standard Review Plan on Transfer and Amendment of Antitrust License Conditions and Antitrust Enforcement” AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Standard Review Plan. SUMMARY: The NRC is seeking public comment on draft NUREG-1574, Revision 2, entitled “Standard Review Plan on Transfer and Amendment of Antitrust License Conditions and Antitrust Enforcement.” This standard review plan

(SRP)documents procedures and guidance to be used by the staff to analyze license transfer applications and license amendment applications involving existing antitrust license conditions, to report to the Attorney General information indicating that a licensee's use of atomic energy appears to have violated the antitrust laws, and to take appropriate enforcement action for a licensee's violation of its antitrust license conditions. Because the SRP describes internal agency procedures and is based on existing Commission guidance in this area, the SRP is being published for interim use. However, the Commission is inviting public comment on the SRP and is interested in possible improvements to it. Public comments will be considered in evaluating the NRC review process in this area. DATES: The public is invited to submit comments on the SRP by July 9, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date. On the basis of the submitted comments, the Commission will determine whether to modify the SRP before issuing it in final form. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Comments submitted in writing or electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Mail comments to: Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments, addressed to the above, to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Publicly available documents may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) through the agency's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov.* This web site provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference Staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to *pdr@nrc.gov.* A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven R. Hom, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone

(301)415-1537, e-mail *srh@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft NUREG-1574, Revision 2, entitled “Standard Review Plan on Transfer and Amendment of Antitrust License Conditions and Antitrust Enforcement” [ML070160586] reflects the Energy Policy Act of 2005's removal of the NRC's antitrust review responsibilities for applications for licenses under sections 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The SRP provides guidance on the appropriate disposition of antitrust license conditions during license transfers and for the review of applications to amend antitrust license conditions outside of license transfers. The SRP also provides guidance regarding the NRC's responsibility to refer certain antitrust matters to the Attorney General, and regarding the NRC's enforcement of antitrust license conditions. The SRP supersedes NUREG-1574, Standard Review Plan on Antitrust Reviews, published December 1997, in its entirety. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of May, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael J. Case, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-10945 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Civil Service Retirement System; Normal Cost Percentages AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is providing notice of revised normal cost percentages for employees covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). DATES: The revised normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Board of Actuaries, care of Gregory Kissel, Manager, Office of Actuaries, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Johnson,

(202)606-0299. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Most Federal employees hired before 1984 are under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Section 8334 of title 5, United States Code, provides for the mandated percentage of basic pay as an employee deduction and agency contributions that are paid into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund

(Fund)for CSRS. The “normal cost” is the percentage of salary that must be contributed at the time service is performed in order to pay the full cost of retirement benefits, assuming that the contributions begin at first creditable employment, and that the system will continue. The normal cost percentages change from time to time based upon changes in the underlying economic assumptions. To fully fund the retirement system, the normal cost percentage of basic pay must be paid into the Retirement Fund at the time service is performed. Under CSRS, the employee deductions and agency contributions are statutorily mandated and unlike FERS, CSRS is not fully funded. The normal costs for CSRS reflect the percentage of basic pay that would have to be contributed to the Fund for CSRS to be fully funded. Additionally, there are a few entities that must pay the full normal cost for their CSRS employees. CSRS offset refers to those employees who are simultaneously covered by the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) tax and CSRS. Section 8334(k) of title 5, United States Code, and subpart J of part 831 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, describe the employee deductions and agency contributions for CSRS offset. Normal cost percentages are different for regular CSRS and CSRS offset because of differences in their benefit structures. Recently, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System approved a revised set of economic assumptions for use in the dynamic actuarial valuations of CSRS. These assumptions were adopted after the Board reviewed statistical data prepared by the OPM actuaries and considered trends that may affect future experience under the System. Based on its analysis, the Board concluded that it would be appropriate to assume a rate of investment return of 6.25 percent, with no difference from the current rate of 6.25 percent. The Board increased the anticipated inflation rate from 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent, and increased the projected rate of General Schedule salary increases from 4.00 percent to 4.25 percent. These salary increases are in addition to assumed within-grade increases that reflect past experience. The new assumptions anticipate that, over the long term, the annual rate of investment return will exceed inflation by 2.75 percent and General Schedule salary increases will exceed inflation by .75 percent a year, as compared to 3 percent and .75 percent, respectively, under the previous assumptions. The normal cost calculations depend on both the economic and demographic assumptions. The demographic assumptions are determined separately for each of a number of special groups, in cases where separate experience data is available. Based on the new economic assumptions and the change in the demographic assumption concerning the rate of early retirements, OPM has determined the normal cost percentage for each category of employees. The Government wide normal cost percentages for CSRS, without offset, including the employee contributions, are as follows: Percent Members 29.4 Congressional employees 34.9 Law enforcement officers, members of the Supreme Court Police, firefighters, nuclear materials couriers and employees under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees 42.5 Air traffic controllers 38.9 All other employees, without offset 25.2 The Government wide normal cost percentages for CSRS offset, including the employee contributions, are as follows: Percent Members offset 27.1 Congressional employees offset 29.9 Law enforcement officers, members of the Supreme Court Police, firefighters, nuclear materials couriers and employees under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees offset 38.0 Air traffic controllers offset 34.6 All other employees, with offset 19.5 These normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2007. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. [FR Doc. E7-11082 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Civil Service Retirement System; Present Value Factors AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is providing notice of adjusted present value factors applicable to retirees under the Civil Service Retirement System

(CSRS)who elect to provide survivor annuity benefits to a spouse based on post-retirement marriage and to retiring employees who elect the alternative form of annuity, owe certain redeposits based on refunds of contributions for service before October 1, 1990, or elect to credit certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. This notice is necessary to conform the present value factors to changes in economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. DATES: *Effective Date:* The revised present value factors apply to survivor reductions or employee annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Board of Actuaries, care of Gregory Kissel, Manager, Office of Actuaries, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Johnson,

(202)606-0299. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several provisions of CSRS require reduction of annuities on an actuarial basis. Under each of these provisions, OPM is required to issue regulations on the method of determining the reduction to ensure that the present value of the reduced annuity plus a lump sum equals, to the extent practicable, the present value of the unreduced benefit. The regulations for each of these benefits provide that OPM will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** whenever it changes the factors used to compute the present values of these benefits. Section 831.2205(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the method for computing the reduction in the beginning rate of annuity payable to a retiree who elects an alternative form of annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8343a. That reduction is required to produce an annuity that is the actuarial equivalent of the annuity of a retiree who does not elect an alternative form of annuity. The present value factors listed below are used to compute the annuity reduction under section 831.2205(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 831.303(c) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of these factors for computing the reduction to complete payment of certain redeposits of refunded deductions based on periods of service that ended before October 1, 1990, under section 8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code. Section 831.663 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of similar factors for computing the reduction required for certain elections to provide survivor annuity benefits based on a post-retirement marriage under section 8339(j)(5)(C) or (k)(2) of title 5, United States Code. Under section 11004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, effective October 1, 1993, OPM ceased collection of these survivor election deposits by means of either a lump-sum payment or installments. Instead, OPM is required to establish a permanent actuarial reduction in the annuity of the retiree. This means that OPM must take the amount of the deposit computed under the old law and translate it into a lifetime reduction in the retiree's benefit. The reduction is based on actuarial tables, similar to those used for alternative forms of annuity under section 8343a of title 5, United States Code. Subpart F of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of similar factors for computing the deficiency the retiree must pay to receive credit for certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities made creditable by an election under section 1043 of Public Law 104-106. The present value factors currently in effect were published by OPM (69 FR 52944) on August 30, 2004. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , OPM published a notice to revise the normal cost percentage under the Federal Employees' Retirement System

(FERS)Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, based on changed economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the CSRS. Those changed economic assumptions require corresponding changes in CSRS normal costs and present value factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the Civil Service Retirement Act. The revised factors will become effective in October 2007 to correspond with the changes in CSRS normal cost percentages. For alternative forms of annuity and redeposits of employee contributions, the new factors will apply to annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 831.2205 and 831.303(c). For survivor election deposits, the new factors will apply to survivor reductions that commence on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 831.663(c) and (d). For obtaining credit for service with certain nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, the new factors will apply to cases in which the date of computation under section 847.603 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, is on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 847.602(c) and 847.603. OPM is, therefore, revising the tables of present value factors to read as follows: CSRS Present Value Factors Applicable to Annuity Payable Following an Election Under Section 8339(j) or

(k)or Section 8343a of Title 5, United States Code, or Under Section 1043 of Public Law 104-106 or Following a Redeposit Under Section 8334(d)(2) of Title 5, United States Code Age Present value factor 40 289.1 41 285.5 42 282.1 43 278.8 44 275.3 45 271.4 46 267.2 47 262.9 48 258.6 49 253.6 50 248.6 51 244.1 52 239.7 53 234.9 54 229.8 55 224.6 56 219.4 57 214.2 58 209.1 59 203.9 60 198.8 61 193.2 62 187.4 63 181.7 64 176.0 65 170.2 66 164.5 67 159.0 68 153.4 69 147.7 70 142.0 71 136.3 72 130.5 73 124.9 74 119.4 75 113.8 76 108.6 77 103.6 78 98.2 79 92.8 80 87.6 81 82.2 82 76.6 83 71.8 84 67.7 85 63.4 86 58.8 87 54.7 88 51.2 89 47.9 90 43.6 CSRS Present Value Factors Applicable to Annuity Payable Following an Election Under Section 1043 of Public Law 104-106 (For Ages at Calculation Below 40) Age at calculation Present value of a monthly annuity 17 336.3 18 334.7 19 333.0 20 331.3 21 329.5 22 327.7 23 325.8 24 323.9 25 321.9 26 319.8 27 317.6 28 315.5 29 313.3 30 310.9 31 308.5 32 306.1 33 303.5 34 300.8 35 298.1 36 295.4 37 292.5 38 289.5 39 286.4 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. [FR Doc. E7-11085 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Federal Employees' Retirement System; Present Value Factors AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is providing notice of adjusted present value factors applicable to retirees who elect to provide survivor annuity benefits to a spouse based on post-retirement marriage, and to retiring employees who elect the alternative form of annuity or elect to credit certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. This notice is necessary to conform the present value factors to changes in economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. DATES: The revised present value factors apply to survivor reductions or employee annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Office of Actuaries, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Johnson,

(202)606-0299. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several provisions of the Federal Employees' Retirement System

(FERS)require reduction of annuities on an actuarial basis. Under each of these provisions, OPM is required to issue regulations on the method of determining the reduction to ensure that the present value of the reduced annuity plus a lump sum equals, to the extent practicable, the present value of the unreduced benefit. The regulations for each of these benefits provide that OPM will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** whenever it changes the factors used to compute the present values of these benefits. Section 842.706(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the method for computing the reduction in the beginning rate of annuity payable to a retiree who elects an alternative form of annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8420a. That reduction is required to produce an annuity that is the actuarial equivalent of the annuity of a retiree who does not elect an alternative form of annuity. The present value factors listed below are used to compute the annuity reduction under 5 CFR 842.706(a). Section 842.615 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of these factors for computing the reduction required for certain elections to provide survivor annuity benefits based on a post-retirement marriage or divorce under 5 U.S.C. 8416(b), 8416(c), or 8417(b). Under section 11004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, 107 Stat. 312, effective October 1, 1993, OPM ceased collection of these survivor election deposits by means of either a lump-sum payment or installments. Instead, OPM is required to establish a permanent actuarial reduction in the annuity of the retiree. This means that OPM must take the amount of the deposit computed under the old law and translate it into a lifetime reduction in the retiree's benefit. The reduction is based on actuarial tables, similar to those used for alternative forms of annuity under section 8420a of title 5, United States Code. Subpart F of part 847 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes the use of similar factors for computing the deficiency the retiree must pay to receive credit for certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities made creditable by an election under section 1043 of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186. OPM published the present value factors currently in effect on August 30, 2004, at 69 FR 52944. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , OPM published a notice to revise the normal cost percentage under the Federal Employees' Retirement System

(FERS)Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, based on changed economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. Under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), those changed economic assumptions require corresponding changes in the present value factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the FERS Act. The revised factors will become effective in October 2007 to correspond with the changes in FERS normal cost percentages. For alternative forms of annuity, the new factors will apply to annuities that commence on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 842.706. For survivor election deposits, the new factors will apply to survivor reductions that commence on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 842.615(b). For obtaining credit for service with certain nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, the new factors will apply to cases in which the date of computation under 5 CFR 847.603 is on or after October 1, 2007. See 5 CFR 847.602(c) and 847.603. OPM is, therefore, revising the tables of present value factors to read as follows: Table I.—FERS Present Value Factors for Ages 62 and Older [Applicable to annuity payable following an election under 5 U.S.C. 8416(b), 8416(c), 8417(b), or 8420a, or under section 1043 of Pub. L. 104-106] Age Present value factor 62 174.9 63 170.0 64 165.0 65 159.9 66 154.9 67 150.0 68 145.0 69 139.9 70 134.8 71 129.7 72 124.4 73 119.3 74 114.3 75 109.2 76 104.3 77 99.7 78 94.7 79 89.6 80 84.8 81 79.7 82 74.4 83 69.9 84 66.0 85 61.9 86 57.5 87 53.5 88 50.2 89 47.0 90 42.9 Table II.A.—FERS Present Value Factors for Ages 40 Through 61 [Applicable to annuity payable when annuity is not increased by cost-of-living adjustments before age 62 following an election under 5 U.S.C. 8416(b), 8416(c), 8417(b), or 8420a, or under section 1043 of Pub. L. 104-106] Age Present value factor 40 185.2 41 184.9 42 184.8 43 184.7 44 184.5 45 184.2 46 183.8 47 183.4 48 183.0 49 182.3 50 181.5 51 181.2 52 180.9 53 180.5 54 179.9 55 179.3 56 178.8 57 178.4 58 178.1 59 177.9 60 177.9 61 177.7 Table II.B.—FERS Present Value Factors for Ages 40 Through 61 [Applicable to annuity payable when annuity is increased by cost-of-living adjustments before age 62 following an election under 5 U.S.C. 8416(b), 8416 (c), 8417(b), or 8420a, or under section 1043 of Pub. L. 104-106] Age Present value factor 40 252.8 41 250.4 42 247.8 43 245.1 44 242.3 45 239.5 46 236.5 47 233.4 48 230.2 49 226.9 50 223.4 51 219.8 52 216.1 53 212.2 54 208.2 55 204.1 56 199.8 57 195.4 58 190.9 59 186.3 60 181.6 61 176.8 Table III.—FERS Present Value Factors for Ages at Calculation Below 40 [Applicable to annuity payable following an election under section 1043 of Pub. L. 104-106] Age at calculation Present value of a monthly annuity 17 291.0 18 290.0 19 288.9 20 287.8 21 286.6 22 285.4 23 284.1 24 282.8 25 281.4 26 280.0 27 278.5 28 277.0 29 275.4 30 273.7 31 272.0 32 270.3 33 268.4 34 266.5 35 264.5 36 262.5 37 260.4 38 258.2 39 255.9 Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. [FR Doc. E7-11083 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Federal Employees' Retirement System; Normal Cost Percentages AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is providing notice of revised normal cost percentages for employees covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System

(FERS)Act of 1986. DATES: The revised normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2007. Agency appeals of the normal cost percentages must be filed no later than December 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver agency appeals of the normal cost percentages and requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Board of Actuaries, care of Gregory Kissel, Manager, Office of Actuaries, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Johnson,

(202)606-0299. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FERS Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, created a new retirement system intended to cover most Federal employees hired after 1983. Most Federal employees hired before 1984 are under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Section 8423 of title 5, United States Code, as added by the FERS Act of 1986, provides for the payment of the Government's share of the cost of the retirement system under FERS. Employees' contributions are established by law and constitute only a small fraction of the cost of funding the retirement system; employing agencies are required to pay the remaining costs. The amount of funding required, known as “normal cost,” is the entry age normal cost of the provisions of FERS that relate to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (Fund). The normal cost must be computed by OPM in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and standards (using dynamic assumptions). Subpart D of part 841 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates how normal costs are determined. Recently, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System approved a revised set of economic assumptions for use in the dynamic actuarial valuations of FERS. These assumptions were adopted after the Board reviewed statistical data prepared by the OPM actuaries and considered trends that may affect future experience under the System. Based on its analysis, the Board concluded that it would be appropriate to assume a rate of investment return of 6.25 percent, with no difference from the current rate of 6.25 percent. The Board increased the anticipated inflation rate from 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent, and increased the projected rate of General Schedule salary increases from 4.00 percent to 4.25 percent. These salary increases are in addition to assumed within-grade increases that reflect past experience. The new assumptions anticipate that, over the long term, the annual rate of investment return will exceed inflation by 2.75 percent and General Schedule salary increases will exceed inflation by .75 percent a year, as compared to 3 percent and .75 percent, respectively, under the previous assumptions. In addition, the Board found changes in all the demographic assumptions listed as factors under § 841.404(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The normal cost calculations depend on both the economic and demographic assumptions. The demographic assumptions are determined separately for each of a number of special groups, in cases where separate experience data is available. Based on the new economic assumptions and the change in the demographic assumption, OPM has determined the normal cost percentage for each category of employees under § 841.403 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The Governmentwide normal cost percentages, including the employee contributions, are as follows: Percent Members 18.6 Congressional employees 17.1 Law enforcement officers, members of the Supreme Court Police, firefighters, nuclear materials couriers and employees under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees 26.2 Air traffic controllers 25.8 Military reserve technicians 14.8 Employees under section 303 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (when serving abroad) 17.0 All other employees 12.0 Under section 841.408 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, these normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2007. The time limit and address for filing agency appeals under sections 841.409 through 841.412 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, are stated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. [FR Doc. E7-11084 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27843; 813-306] Stephens Inc., et al.; Notice of Application May 29, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting an exemption from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to exempt certain limited liability companies and other entities (“Companies”) formed for the benefit of key employees of Stephens Inc. (“Stephens”) and its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act. Each Company will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. Applicants: Stephens; Stephens Investment Partners 2001 LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2001A LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2001B LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2001C LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2003 LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2003A LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2003B LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2004 LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2004A LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2004B LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2006 LLC, Stephens Investment Partners 2006A LLC, and Stephens Investment Partners 2006B LLC (collectively, the “Initial Companies”). Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 4, 2000, and amended on February 22, 2007 and April 27, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 25, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 111 Center Street, Suite 2300, Little Rock, AR 72201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6811 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone

(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. Stephens is an investment banking firm organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas. Stephens is a wholly owned subsidiary of SI Holdings Inc., a holding company for a limited number of financial and insurance related companies. Stephens engages in municipal underwriting, mergers and acquisitions, corporate underwriting, private placements, trading, discretionary portfolio management, and offers a full range of investment banking services. Stephens is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Stephens and its “affiliates,” as defined in rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, are referred to collectively as the “Stephens Group” and each entity within the Stephens Group is referred to individually as a “Stephens Group Entity.” 2. Stephens has established the Initial Companies as limited liability companies organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas and may in the future establish additional pooled investment vehicles identical in all material respects to the Initial Companies (other than investment objectives and strategies and form of organization) (the “Subsequent Companies” and collectively with the Initial Companies, the “Companies”) for the benefit of current or former key employees, officers, directors and consultants of the Stephens Group and certain entities and individuals affiliated with employees of the Stephens Group (“Members”). The Companies are designed primarily to create capital building opportunities that are competitive with those at other investment banking firms for the Members and to facilitate the recruitment and retention of high caliber professionals. 3. Each Company will operate as a closed-end, management investment company and may be diversified or non-diversified. The Initial Companies are organized in a “master-feeder” structure, in which several feeder Companies invest all of their assets in a master Company (“Master Company”) that invests directly or indirectly in portfolio companies. Each Company, including the Master Company, will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. The investment objectives and policies for each Company may vary from Company to Company. Participation in the Companies is voluntary, except with respect to Plan Interest Holders (as defined below) who will receive an award of interests in the Companies on an involuntary basis (as described below). 4. The Initial Companies are managed by a committee of ten managers (collectively, the “Managers”). Each Manager is a senior executive of Stephens and an Accredited Investor (as defined below) who is eligible to invest in a Company. It is currently anticipated that Subsequent Companies will be managed by the Managers, however, Stephens may in the future organize one or more Stephens Group Entities to serve as the Manager of one or more Subsequent Companies. The Managers will register as investment advisers under the Advisers Act, if required under applicable law. 5. Interests in the Companies (“Interests”) will be offered without registration in reliance on section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or Regulation D under the Securities Act, and will be offered and sold only to

(a)certain officers, directors, employees and “Consultants” 1 of the Stephens Group who meet the standards set forth below (“Stephens Employees”), and

(b)trusts or other investment vehicles of which the trustees or grantors are Stephens Employees or Stephens Employees together with their Qualified Family Members (as defined below), trusts or other investment vehicles established solely for the benefit of Stephens Employees or their Qualified Family Members, or partnerships, corporations or other entities all of the voting power of which is controlled by Stephens Employees (“Qualified Investment Vehicles” and collectively with Stephens Employees, “Eligible Investors”). Qualified Family Members include any parent, child, spouse of a child, spouse, brother, sister or grandchild, and includes any step and adoptive relationships. Each Eligible Investor must have, in the reasonable belief of the Managers, the knowledge, sophistication and experience in business and financial matters to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of investing in a Company and be able to bear the economic risk of such investment, and be able to afford a complete loss of the investment. In the future, Stephens Group Entities may invest in a Company and Interests in a Company may be offered and sold to Qualified Family Members. 1 A “Consultant” is a person or entity whom a Stephens Group Entity has engaged on retainer to provide services and professional expertise on an ongoing basis as a regular consultant or as a business or legal adviser and who shares a community of interest with the Stephens Group and its employees. 6. To be a Stephens Employee, an individual must

(a)meet the standards of an accredited investor under rule 501(a)(5) or 501(a)(6) of Regulation D under the Securities Act (an “Accredited Investor”) or

(b)be one of 35 Stephens Employees who

(i)is a Managing Employee (as defined below) or

(ii)has a minimum of three years business experience in management, consulting, accounting, finance, law or investment banking; will have a reportable income from all sources (including any profit share or bonus) in the calendar year immediately preceding his or her admission as a Member of at least $100,000 and a reasonable expectation of reportable income of at least $100,000 in each year in which he or she invests in a Company; and has a graduate degree in business, law, finance or accounting (“Sophisticated Employee”); except that a Managing Employee who is an Accredited Investor is not counted toward the 35 employee limit referred to in

(b)above. A Managing Employee is an employee of Stephens Group who meets the definition of “knowledgeable employee” in rule 3c-5(a)(4) under the Act (with the Company treated as though it were a “Covered Company” for purposes of the rule). Each Sophisticated Employee will not be permitted to invest in any year more than 10% of such person's income from all sources for the immediately preceding year in the aggregate in a Company and in all other Companies in which he or she has previously invested. 7. To be a Stephens Employee, an entity must

(a)be a current or former Consultant of a Stephens Group Entity and

(b)meet the standards of an accredited investor under rule 501(a) of Regulation D. To be a Qualified Family Member, a person must be an Accredited Investor. A Stephens Employee or a Qualified Family Member may purchase an Interest through a Qualified Investment Vehicle only if either

(a)the Qualified Investment Vehicle is an accredited investor, or

(b)the Qualified Investment Vehicle, which is not an accredited investor,

(i)has a Stephens Employee or Qualified Family Member as the settlor 2 and principal investment decision-maker, and

(ii)is counted toward the limit on the 35 non-accredited investors that may invest in a Company. 2 If a Qualified Investment Vehicle is an entity other than a trust, the reference to “settler” shall be construed to mean a person who created the vehicle, alone or together with others, and who contributed funds to the vehicle. 8. Certain employees of the Stephens Group who do not qualify as Eligible Investors may receive Interests from Stephens without payment as part of an employee benefit plan in order to reward and retain these employees (“Plan Interest Holders”). Interests awarded to Plan Interest Holders will not be registered under the Securities Act and, because these employees will not be investing their own funds and will not have discretion over whether or not they receive Interests, these employees will not meet the sophistication and salary requirements to which Eligible Investors are subject. Plan Interest Holders will receive Interests at no cost and will neither make, nor be permitted to make, any financial contribution in order to acquire Interests. Plan Interest Holders will not be permitted to elect to receive an equivalent cash payment or other compensation in lieu of Interests. Plan Interest Holders will have no control or input as to whether they are awarded Interests, and the Interests given to Plan Interest Holders will not replace any part of, or reduce in any manner, the compensation of, or other benefits provided to, the Plan Interest Holders. 9. The investment objectives and strategies for each Company will be set forth in offering documents relating to the Interests offered by the Company. Prior to being invited to participate in a Company or receiving an Interest in a Company, each Eligible Investor or Plan Interest Holder will receive a copy of the offering documents and the operating agreement (or other organizational document) of the Company or an offering memorandum, which will set forth all the terms of participation in the Company. The Managers will send an annual report to each Member not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year, which will contain financial statements of the Company that have been audited by independent accountants. In addition, the Members will receive at least annually all information necessary to enable the Members to prepare their federal and state income tax returns. 10. Interests in the Companies will be non-transferable by a Member except with the express consent of the Managers or to the Eligible Investor's estate in the event of his or her death. No person will be admitted as a Member of a Company unless the person is an Eligible Investor, a Plan Interest Holder, a Stephens Group Entity, a Qualified Family Member, or a Qualified Investment Vehicle, except that a legal representative may hold an Interest in order to settle the estate of a deceased Member or administer its property. No fee of any kind will be charged in connection with the sale of Interests. 11. A Member's Interests in a Company may be subject to a vesting schedule that will provide that such Interests will initially be unvested or only partially vested and will vest over time at specified percentages and specified intervals as set out in the Company's operating agreement or other constitutive document. A Member's Interests in a Company will be subject to repurchase or cancellation if:

(a)The Member's employment relationship with the Stephens Group is terminated for cause,

(b)the Member becomes a consultant to or joins any firm that the Managers determine, in their reasonable discretion, is competitive with any business of the Stephens Group, or

(c)the Member voluntarily resigns from employment with the Stephens Group. Upon the occurrence of one of the events specified above, the relevant Company or a Stephens Group Entity will have the right to repurchase all of the terminating Member's Interests in exchange for a payment equal to the amount actually paid by the Member to acquire the Interests less the fair market value of any distributions received by that Member from the Fund, plus interest. This repurchase right also applies upon any attempted transfer of Interests (whether vested or not) in violation of the transfer restrictions. Following termination where the Company's repurchase option does not apply, the terminating Member (or, following the death of the Member, the Member's estate or beneficiary) has the right to continue to hold the Interests purchased or awarded prior to termination and to receive distributions on the same terms as other Interest holders in the relevant Companies. 12. Certain of the Companies may leverage their investments through loans from a Stephens Group Entity. Each such Company loan will be made at an interest rate no less favorable than that which could be obtained on an arm's length basis. The Companies will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own outstanding securities of the Company (other than short-term paper). Any Company loan made to a Company will be non-recourse to the Members. 13. A Company will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if immediately after the acquisition, the Company would own more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company. 14. The Managers may charge the Companies an administrative fee or a management fee, including a performance fee. 3 The Managers may receive reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses, including reimbursement for the allocable portion of the salaries of the Stephens Group employees who participate in any of the Companies' affairs. 3 Any performance fee payable by a Company to the Managers may be charged only to the extent permitted by rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act (in the case of Managers registered under the Advisers Act) or will comply with section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act (in the case of Managers exempt from registration under the Advisers Act), with the Company treated as a business development company solely for the purpose of that section. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the company's securities and the amount of any sales load, how the company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company as any investment company all of whose securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned

(a)by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers,

(b)by immediate family members of such persons, or

(c)by such employer or employers together with any of the persons in

(a)or (b). 2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting the Companies from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application. 3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from the company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit:

(a)A Stephens Group Entity, or an affiliated person of a Stephens Group Entity (“Stephens Affiliate”), acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or indirectly with any Company or any entity controlled by the Company;

(b)a Company to invest in or engage in any transaction with any entity, acting as principal

(i)in which the Company, any company controlled by the Company or any entity in which a Stephens Group Entity has invested or will invest or

(ii)with which the Company, any company controlled by the Company, or a Stephens Group Entity is or will otherwise become affiliated;

(c)a partner or other investor in any entity in which a Company invests, acting as principal, to engage in transactions directly or indirectly with a Company or any company controlled by a Company; or

(d)a sale by a Company as a selling security holder in a public offering in which a Stephens Group Entity or a Stephens Affiliate acts as a member of the selling group. 4. Applicants state that an exemption from section 17(a) is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the Act. Applicants state that the Members in each Company will be informed of the possible extent of the Company's dealings with Stephens Group Entities and of the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Applicants also state that, as professionals engaged in the investment banking business, the Members will be able to understand and evaluate the attendant risks. Applicants assert that the community of interest among the Members and Stephens will serve to reduce any risk of abuse in transactions involving a Company and a Stephens Group Entity. 5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person or principal underwriter of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person or principal underwriter, acting as principal, from participating in any joint arrangement unless authorized by the Commission. Applicants request relief to permit affiliated persons of each Company, or affiliated persons of such persons, to participate in any joint arrangement in which the Company or an entity controlled by the Company is a participant. 6. Applicants submit that it is likely that suitable investments will be brought to the attention of a Company because of its affiliation with the Stephens Group and Stephen Group's experience in investment and merchant banking. Applicants also submit that the types of investment opportunities considered by a Company often require each investor to make funds available in an amount that may be substantially greater than what a Company may make available on its own. Applicants contend that, as a result, the only way in which a Company may be able to participate in these opportunities may be to co-invest with other persons, including its affiliates. Applicants note that each Company will be primarily organized for the benefit of Members as an incentive for them to remain with the Stephens Group and for the generation and maintenance of goodwill. Applicants believe that, if co-investments with the Stephens Group Entities are prohibited, the appeal of the Companies would be substantially eliminated. 7. Applicants state that the possibility that permitting co-investments by a Stephens Group Entity and a Company might lead to less advantageous treatment of the Company is mitigated by

(a)the community of interest between the Stephens Group and the Members in the Company and

(b)the fact that officers and directors of Stephens Group Entities will be investing in the Company. In addition, applicants assert that compliance with section 17(d) could cause a Company to forego attractive investment opportunities simply because an affiliated person of the Company has made, or may make, the same investment. 8. Section 17(e) of the Act and rule 17e-1 under the Act limit the compensation an affiliated person may receive when acting as agent or broker for a registered investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(e) to permit a Stephens Group Entity, acting as agent or broker, to receive placement fees, advisory fees, or other compensation from a Company in connection with the purchase or sale by a Company of securities, subject to the requirement that the fees or other compensation must be deemed “usual and customary.” Applicants state that for the purposes of the application, fees or other compensation that is charged or received by a Stephens Group Entity will be deemed “usual and customary” only if

(a)the Company is purchasing or selling securities alongside other unaffiliated third parties who also are similarly purchasing or selling securities,

(b)the fees or compensation being charged to the Company are also being charged to the unaffiliated third parties, and

(c)the amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Company does not exceed 50% of the total amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Company and the unaffiliated third parties. Applicants assert that, because the Stephens Group does not wish it to appear as if it is favoring the Companies, compliance with section 17(e) would prevent a Company from participating in a transaction where the Company is being charged lower fees than the unaffiliated third parties. Applicants assert that the fees or other compensation paid by a Company to a Stephens Group Entity will be the same as those negotiated at arm's length with unaffiliated third parties. 9. Rule 17e-1(b) requires that a majority of directors who are not “interested persons” (as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the Act) take actions and make approvals regarding commissions, fees, or other remuneration. Rule 17e-1(c) requires each Company to comply with the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7). Applicants request an exemption from rule 17e-1(b) to the extent necessary to permit each Company to comply with the rule without having a majority of the Managers of the Company who are not interested persons take actions and make determinations as set forth in the rule. Applicants state that because the Managers of a Company will be deemed interested persons of the Company, without the relief requested, a Company could not comply with rule 17e-1(b). Applicants state that each Company will comply with rule 17e-1(b) by having a majority of the Managers take actions and make approvals as set forth in rule 17e-1. Applicants also request an exemption from rule 17e-1(c). Applicants state that each Company will otherwise comply with the requirements of rule 17e-1. 10. Section 17(f) designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f-1 imposes certain requirements when the custodian is a member of a national securities exchange. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(f) and rule 17f-1(a) to permit Stephens to act as custodian of a Company's assets without a written contract. Applicants also request an exemption from the rule 17f-1(b)(4) requirement that an independent accountant periodically verify the assets held by the custodian. Applicants further request an exemption from rule 17f-1(c)'s requirement of transmitting to the Commission a copy of any contract executed pursuant to rule 17f-1. Applicants believe that, because of the community of interest between the Stephens Group and the Companies and the existing requirement for an independent audit, compliance with these requirements would be unnecessary. Applicants state that they will comply with rule 17f-1(d), provided that ratification by the Managers of any Company will be deemed to be ratification by a majority of the board of directors of that Company. Applicants state that each Company will comply with all other requirements of rule 17f-1. 11. Section 17(g) and rule 17g-1 generally require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g-1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. Paragraph

(g)of rule 17g-1 sets forth certain materials relating to the fidelity bond that must be filed with the Commission and certain notices relating to the fidelity bond that must be given to each member of the investment company's board of directors. Paragraph

(h)of rule 17g-1 provides that an investment company must designate one of its officers to make the filings and give the notices required by paragraph (g). Paragraph

(j)of rule 17g-1 exempts a joint insured bond provided and maintained by an investment company and one or more other parties from section 17(d) of the Act and the rules thereunder. Rule 17g-1(j)(3) requires that the board of directors of an investment company satisfy the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7). Applicants request an exemption from section 17(g) and rule 17g-1 to the extent necessary to permit each Company to comply with rule 17g-1 without the necessity of having a majority of the disinterested directors take such action and make the determinations set forth in the rule. Specifically, each Company will comply with rule 17g-1 by having the Managers take such actions and make such approvals as are set forth in rule 17g-1. Applicants state that, because the Managers will be interested persons of each Company, a Company could not comply with rule 17g-1 without the requested relief. Applicants also request an exemption from the requirements of rule 17g-1(g) and

(h)relating to the filing of copies of fidelity bonds and related information with the Commission and provision of notices to the board of directors and from the requirements of rule 17g-1(j)(3). Applicants believe the filing requirements are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to the Companies. The Managers will maintain the materials otherwise required to be filed with the Commission by rule 17g-1(g) and agree that all such material will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. The Managers will designate a person to maintain the records otherwise required to be filed with the Commission under paragraph

(g)of the rule. Applicants also state that the notices otherwise required to be give to the board of directors would be unnecessary as the Companies will not have boards of directors. The Companies will comply with all other requirements of rule 17g-1. 12. Section 17(j) and paragraph

(b)of rule 17j-1 make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of a security held or to be acquired by a registered investment company. Rule 17j-1 also requires that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of a registered investment company report personal securities transactions. Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of rule 17j-1, except for the anti-fraud provisions of paragraph (b), because they are unnecessarily burdensome as applied to the Companies. 13. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(e), and the rules under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Companies and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Members. Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Company to report annually to its Members. Applicants also request also an exemption from section 30(h) to the extent necessary to exempt the Managers of each Company and any other person who may be deemed to be a member of an advisory board of a Company from filing Forms 3, 4, and 5 under section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests in a Company. Applicants assert that, because there will be no trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them. 14. Rule 38a-1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement and periodically review written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of the federal securities laws and to appoint a chief compliance officer. Each Company will comply with rule 38a-1(a),

(c)and (d), except that

(a)because the Companies do not have boards of directors, the Managers of each Company will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to a Company's board of directors under the rule, and

(b)because all Managers would be considered interested persons of the Companies, approval by a majority of disinterested directors required by rule 38a-1 will not be obtained. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Each proposed transaction involving a Company otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder (each, a “Section 17 Transaction”) will be effected only if the Managers determine that:

(a)The terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the Members and do not involve overreaching of the Company or its Members on the part of any person concerned; and

(b)the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of the Members, the Company's organizational documents and the Company's reports to its Members. In addition, the Managers will record and preserve a description of all Section 17 Transactions, their findings, the information or materials upon which their findings are based, and the basis therefor. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Companies and at least six years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. Each Company will preserve the accounts, books, and other documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place for the first two years. 2. In connection with the Section 17 Transactions, the Managers will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, before the consummation of any such transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal underwriter for the Companies, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, promoter, or principal underwriter. 3. The Managers of each Company will not invest the funds of any Company in any investment in which an Affiliated Co-Investor (as defined below) has acquired or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer, where the investment involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d-1 in which the Company and an Affiliated Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Affiliated Co-Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment,

(a)gives the Managers sufficient, but not less than one day's, notice of its intent to dispose of its investment and

(b)refrains from disposing of its investment unless the Company has the opportunity to dispose of the Company's investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and pro rata with the Affiliated Co-Investor. The term “Affiliated Co-Investor” with respect to a Company means:

(a)An “affiliated person,” as such term is defined in the Act, of the Company;

(b)the Stephens Group;

(c)an officer, director or employee of the Stephens Group;

(d)an investment vehicle offered, sponsored or managed by the Stephens Group, or

(e)an entity in which a member of the Stephens Group acts as a general partner or has a similar capacity to control the sale or other disposition of the entity's securities. The restrictions contained in this condition, however, will not be deemed to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by an Affiliated Co-Investor:

(a)To its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, to any company (a “Parent”) of which the Affiliated Co-Investor is a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, or to a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of its Parent;

(b)to Immediate Family Members of the Affiliated Co-Investor or a trust established for any Affiliated Co-Investor or any such family member; or

(c)when the investment is comprised of securities that are

(i)listed on any national securities exchange registered under section 6 of the Exchange Act;

(ii)national market system securities pursuant to section 11A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act and rule 11Aa2-1 thereunder; or

(iii)government securities as defined in section 2(a)(16) of the Act. 4. Each Company and its Managers will maintain and preserve, for the life of each Company and at least six years thereafter, all accounts, books, and other documents as constitute the record forming the basis for the audited financial statements that are to be provided to the Members, and each annual report of such Company required to be sent to the Members, and agree that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. 4 4 Each Company will preserve the accounts, books and other documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place for the first two years. 5. The Managers will send to each Member who had an Interest in the Company, at any time during the fiscal year then ended, Company financial statements that have been audited by that Company's independent accountants. At the end of each fiscal year, the Managers will make a valuation or have a valuation made of all of the assets of the Company as of such fiscal year end in a manner consistent with customary practice with respect to the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Company. In addition, within 120 days after the end of each fiscal year of the Company or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Managers of the Company shall send a report to each person who was a Member at any time during the fiscal year then ended setting forth tax information necessary for the preparation by the Member of his or her federal and state income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the Company during that year. 6. Whenever a Company makes a purchase from or sale to an entity that is affiliated with the Company by reason of a Stephens Group director, officer, or employee

(a)serving as an officer, director, general partner or investment adviser of the entity or

(b)having a 5% or more investment in the entity, that individual will not participate in the determination by the Managers of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10924 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55843; File No. SR-Amex-2004-27] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to the Listing and Trading of Fixed Return Options June 1, 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 29, 2004, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on September 26, 2006. 3 Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on April 19, 2007. 4 Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on May 23, 2007. 5 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 replaces the original filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 replaces the original filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. 5 Amendment No. 3 made changes to the proposed rule text relating to minimum margin requirements. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to list and trade options having a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price (“Fixed Return Options” or “FROs”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, from the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com.* 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. The Exchange has 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 Introduction The Exchange proposes to list and trade options, called Fixed Return Options, having a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price. 6 The proposed Fixed Return Options would initially consist of two types as follows:

(1)“Finish High” SM —Each contract returns $100 if the underlying settlement value is above the strike price at expiration and

(2)“Finish Low” SM —Each contract returns $100 if the underlying settlement value is below the strike price at expiration. The Finish High and Finish Low FROs are similar to existing long calls and long puts traded on the Exchange. 6 Patent Pending. The contract specifications for a FRO are set forth in *Exhibit A* to the proposal. The structure of the FRO is commonly referred to as a “binary” option. 7 Although FROs would be based on the same underlying securities and in the same framework as existing standardized options traded on Amex and the other options exchanges, the amount of the payout or profit of an FRO is based on whether the option is in the money, not by the degree it is in the money. As a result, the payout at expiration is an “all-or-nothing” occurrence. As with a standard European-style option, the payoff is based on the price of the underlying asset at expiration. However, unlike standard options currently traded on the Exchange, the payoff would be a fixed amount as of the writing of the option contract. In addition, an FRO would be automatically exercised at expiration if the price of the underlying security settles above the pre-defined strike price, in the case of a Finish High, or below the pre-defined strike price, in the case of a Finish Low. 8 7 A “binary option” is an option with a fixed, pre-determined payoff if the underlying security or index is in the money at expiration. The value of the payoff is not affected by the magnitude of the differenfce between the underlying and the strike price. A binary option is characterized by a discontinuous or non-linear payoff ( *i.e.,* an “all-or-nothing” feature). 8 Currently, the Exchange lists and trades Index Flex Options that are automatically exercised pursuant to Rule 1804(c) of The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Automatic exercise in this context refers to the fact that all in the money options are automatically exercised with the holder of such option having no choice to not exercise. This differs significantly from the “Ex-by-Ex” procedure (often inaccurately referred to as “automatic exercise”) employed by OCC in OCC Rule 805, which always allows an OCC Clearing Member to effect a choice not to exercise an option that is in the money by the exercise threshold amount or more, or to exercise an option which has not reached the exercise threshold amount. The exercise threshold amount set forth in OCC Rule 805 is $0.25 per share in the money for customer accounts and $0.15 per share in the money for firm and market maker accounts. The exercise threshold amount employed in the “Ex-by-Ex” procedure triggers the automatic exercise only in the absence of contrary instructions from the Clearing Member. *See also* Amex Rule 980. Binary options have been traded in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market for many years. 9 However, OTC binary options have certain disadvantages. OTC binary options are typically offered by an institution on a non-fungible basis so the customer can purchase the option from or close out the option with only the particular institution that issued the option. As a result, OTC binary options lack both a trading market (liquidity) as well as transparency. The Exchange proposal to list and trade FROs is intended to provide the market for binary options with a standardized, fungible product without the credit risk of an individual issuer. By providing a listed or standardized market for a class of binary options named FROs, the Exchange seeks to attract investors who desire a binary option but at the same time prefer the certainty and safeguards of a regulated and standardized marketplace. 9 As reported by the Bank for International Settlements (“BIS”), the worldwide OTC equity-linked derivatives market was estimated on a notional amount basis to be $6.8 trillion as of June 2006. As of the same time period, OTC equity-based options were estimated on a notional amount basis to amount to $5.3 trillion. *See* BIS, OTC Derivatives Market Activity in the First Half of 2006 (November 2006). The FROs that the Exchange proposes to list and trade would be European-style 10 with expirations based on existing option cycles. Strike prices would be quoted based on existing intervals with minimum price variations (“MPVs”) expected to be $0.05 (except for those option classes that are part of the Penny Quoting Pilot Program, where the MPV would be $0.01). Strike prices initially would be established at approximate levels up to 20% above and below the price of the underlying asset. The Exchange is proposing in this filing to allow individual stocks and exchange-traded fund shares (“ETFs”) that meet the listing criteria set forth below to underlie an FRO. 10 A “European style” option is an option where the holder may exercise the contract only on the last business day prior to expiration. Benefits and Uses FROs are designed to be a simplified version of traditional, exchange-traded options. The inherent benefit of FROs is largely associated with the certainty provided writers and purchasers, *i.e.* , a known maximum payout or liability at the time the contract is entered into. For investors, Amex believes that three positive attributes relating to FROs are apparent:

(i)Simplicity;

(ii)risk transparency; and

(iii)liquidity. First, an FRO is easier to understand and utilize than a traditional equity option largely based on the certain payment amount and cash settlement. Second, unlike traditional options where a writer has unlimited risk, the maximum obligation in connection with an FRO is known at $100. Third, as an exchange-traded option, the FRO would have the advantage of liquidity provided by specialists and market makers; therefore, spreads should be tighter than exists in the OTC market. In addition, the structure of an FRO eliminates the potential counterparty risk inherent in OTC products. Amex believes that a significant benefit of an FRO is that the purchaser and writer of the FRO know the expected return at the time of purchase if the underlying security performs as expected. In contrast, the “traditional” option does not typically have a known return at the time of purchase, *i.e.* , the return cannot be accurately determined until the option is nearing expiration due to price movements. In addition, because the return on the FRO is a fixed amount, a buyer of the FRO would not need to determine the absolute magnitude of the underlying security's price movement relative to the strike price, as is the case with traditional options. Yet another benefit of the FRO is the limited risk/return to the writer/purchaser because of the payout being a known, fixed dollar amount. A systemic benefit provided by the FRO versus its OTC counterpart is the ability of standardized clearing and settlement systems to be programmed to recognize FROs based on their unique underlying symbols and segregation for particular treatment by systems used for calculating permissible margin as well as final payout amounts due at settlement. Amex believes that investors will want to utilize FROs to earn additional income on securities they own. An “FRO Call Writing” strategy describes a situation where an investor is long stock and writes a Finish High FRO on that same security. In this instance, the writer has earned premium while risking a fixed and known portion of the upside should the stock close above the FRO strike price at expiration. The amount at risk is the difference between $100 and the premium received. In contrast, if a holder of a long stock position employs a “Call Writing” strategy by writing a traditional call covered by the corresponding long stock position, up to 100% of the potential upside may be given up if the stock moves up beyond the option strike price. A holder of stock, particularly stock that has depreciated, may lock in a loss by selling traditional “covered calls”—there is no potential for upside, beyond the premium received, if the stock moves up and closes above the strike at expiration. With the “FRO Call Writing” strategy, an investor believing his long stock position would remain stagnant in the short term may further choose to write more than one Finish High FRO, increasing the short-term return potential by receiving more premium for the additional calls sold. The investor by engaging in this FRO Call Writing strategy would maintain certainty of stock ownership while knowing the total capital or funds at risk if the stock exceeds the strike price of the Finish Highs sold. On the buy side, Amex believes that the decision process is made simpler for the investor with the advent of the FRO. To profit from buying a traditional call, an investor must be correct in his prediction that the underlying security will appreciate within a given period of time. In addition, due to the linear payoff nature of the traditional call, the investor must also be correct about the amount of time erosion or “decay” of the position in the time he holds the call. Thus, with a traditional long call purchase, if the investor is correct in his prediction that the stock will appreciate within a set period of time, there are still other factors, such as volatility and time premium, that could affect potential returns. If the purchaser of a long FRO position is correct about the prediction that the stock will appreciate and also correct about the timeframe within which this appreciation will occur, he then has a known risk/return profile, due to the non-linear relationship between the Fixed Return Option payoff amount and the price of the underlying at expiration. This offers the investor the ability to make an exact risk/reward analysis of the investment if he is correct in his assumption on the underlying stock at expiration. In contrast, the traditional call buyer can make only estimates of risk/reward based on multiple assumptions. The Exchange believes that FROs would also provide investors with an efficient way to establish various strategies and enhance portfolio performance. For example, the Finish High FRO has characteristics similar to a bull call spread; however, in the case of the FRO, an investor could accomplish the strategy with reduced execution cost. We believe that such unique uses for FROs would provide investors with greater opportunities to effectively use options as part of an investment strategy. In sum, the Exchange believes that the simple structure of FROs will attract investors to the benefits of options trading. Standardization The Exchange in proposing FROs is attempting to list a binary option in an exchange-traded environment. 11 In this manner, the Exchange intends, to the extent possible, to have FROs recognized and treated like existing standardized options. Standardized systems for listing, trading, transmitting, clearing, and settling options, including systems used by OCC, would be employed in connection with FROs. As a result, FROs would have symbology based on the current system so that symbols are created that represent the underlying security, the fact that the option is a “Finish High” or “Finish Low” FRO as opposed to a traditional put or call, the expiration date, the strike price, and the exchange trading FROs. 11 The Exchange to its knowledge is the first national securities exchange to propose the listing and trading of a binary option in a standardized environment. The Exchange has pending a patent application for trading binary options in an exchange-traded environment. Options Contract Multiplier The standardized option contract traded by all U.S. options exchanges typically is quoted in amounts that are multiplied by “100” due to the fact that the option represents rights associated with 100 shares of the underlying security upon exercise. The multiplier of 100 has also been carried over to index options. The Exchange has proposed to continue this industry convention for FROs. For example, an option that currently is quoted at $0.50 actually costs the investor $50.00 ($0.50 × 100). Minimum Price Variation Amex Rule 952 generally provides that the MPV for an option on a stock or ETF shall be:

(i)For option issues quoted under $3 a contract, $0.05;

(ii)for option issues quoted at $3 a contract or greater, $0.10. However, in connection with those options classes included within the Penny Quoting Pilot Program, 12 the MPV is as follows:

(iii)For option issues quoted under $3 a contract, $0.01;

(iv)for option issues quoted at $3 a contract or greater, $0.05. In addition, options on the Power Shares QQQ Trust (formerly, the QQQQ) trade at an MPV of $0.01 for all options premiums. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55162 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 5738 (February 1, 2007). The MPV for FROs would be $0.05 (and $0.01 for those options classes in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program) because, by definition, an FRO would never be quoted over $1.00. Maximum Bid/Ask Differentials To contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, specialists and registered options traders (“ROTs”) are typically expected to bid and offer so as to create differences of no more than:

(i)$0.25 between the bid and offer for each option contract for which the prevailing bid is less than $2;

(ii)$0.40 where the prevailing bid is $2 but does not exceed $5;

(iii)$0.50 where the prevailing bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10;

(iv)$0.80 where the prevailing bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20; and

(v)$1 where the last prevailing bid is more than $20. 13 With respect to FROs, the Exchange believes that the maximum bid/ask differential should typically be $0.25. However, due to the non-linear payoff nature of FROs, we believe that during the last day of trading prior to expiration, the maximum bid/ask differential should be $0.50. 14 13 If the bid/ask spread in the underlying security is greater than the bid/ask spread for the option, the permissible spread for any in the money option series may be identical to the underlying security market. We believe FROs should follow this existing practice for traditional options. *See* Amex Rule 958—ANTE(c). 14 Where warranted by market conditions, the Exchange is proposing to be able to establish maximum bid/ask spreads other than those noted above for one or more series or classes of FROs. In terms of the maximum bid-ask differential, existing options with a prevailing bid of $1 equate to the $100 value of an FRO and, therefore, a maximum bid-ask differential of $0.25 or $25.00 ($0.25 × 100). Accordingly, Amex believes, consistent with existing rules, that the maximum bid-ask differential for FROs should generally be $0.25. Expiration Cycles and Strike Price Intervals Pursuant to Amex Rule 903, the Exchange generally opens up to four expiration months for each options class upon the initial listing of such class for trading. Upon expiration of the near-term month, the Exchange will then list an additional expiration month. FROs would use the same expiration cycle as currently is the case for traditional options listed on the Exchange, consistent with Amex Rule 903. Strike price intervals in connection with FROs also would employ the same procedure as exists for traditional options under Amex Rule 903 and related commentaries. Specifically, the interval between strike prices of series of options on individual stocks may be

(i)$2.50 or greater where the strike price is $25 or less, provided that the Exchange may not list $2.50 intervals below $20 ( *e.g.* , $12.50, $17.50) for any class included within the $1 Strike Price Pilot Program, if the addition of $2.50 intervals would cause the class to have strike price intervals that are $0.50 apart;

(ii)$5 or greater where the strike price is greater than $25 but less than $200; or

(iii)$10 or greater where the strike price is greater than or equal to $200. For series of options on ETFs that satisfy the criteria set forth in Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 915, the interval of strike prices would be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less or $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200. 15 15 Commentaries .05 and .06 to Amex Rule 903 provide limited exceptions to the general strike price intervals in connection with the $1 Strike Price Pilot Program and the 2 1/2 Point Strike Price Program. The Exchange proposes that securities underlying options classes that currently are part of the $1 Strike Price Pilot Program and the 2 1/2 Point Strike Price Program also may underlie an FRO. Due to the heightened listing standards proposed by the Exchange in proposed Amex Rules 915FRO and 916FRO, the number of FROs available under these existing programs would be limited. 16 Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that the strike price intervals for FROs would be established under existing procedures as set forth in Amex Rule 903. 16 As of March 5, 2007, the number of underlying stocks available under the $1 Strike Price Pilot Program for FROs would be four, while the number of underlying stocks available under the 2 1/2 Point Strike Price Program would be 39. VWAP Settlement Pricing To protect against any potential price manipulation that could occur at expiration due to the “all-or-nothing” nature of FROs, the Exchange has proposed that the expiration or settlement price for an underlying individual equity security be calculated as a “volume weighted average price” or “VWAP.” As provided below, FROs would be listed only on the most liquid and actively-traded equity securities. VWAP is a simple algorithm that is defined as the number of shares multiplied by the corresponding reported price of the security. The total number of shares reported divides the sum of these transactions during the time period used for the calculation. The VWAP calculation would be based on composite prices reported during regular trading hours for the underlying securities. In addition, the current value of the VWAP calculation for each series of FROs would be published and disseminated at least every 15 seconds throughout the trading day. The Exchange believes that a settlement price based on an “all-day” VWAP during the last trading day prior to expiration is appropriate for FROs based on individual stocks and ETFs. We believe that the use of an “all-day” VWAP for determining the settlement price of an FRO is sufficient to protect against concerns of manipulation, and that the publication and dissemination of intraday updates of the current VWAP calculation would add greater transparency. For purposes of the VWAP calculation, the Exchange believes that composite prices should be used. Composite pricing is currently employed by OCC in connection with the settlement of equity options. 17 17 *See* OCC Clearing Members Memorandum No. 18930 (May 29, 2003); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49045 (January 8, 2004), 69 FR 2377 (January 15, 2004). The VWAP settlement price would be disseminated by the Exchange as the official settlement price for FROs and would be made publicly available through various market data vendors as well as on the Amex Web site at *http://www.amex.com* . Underlying Closing Price Methodology In the money amounts for any option, including FROs, are a function of the underlying security price. For traditional equity and ETF options, OCC as the issuer of the options uses the “composite closing price” ( *i.e.* , the last reported sale price during regular trading hours) for the underlying security on the trading day immediately preceding the expiration date as reported by industry price vendors. 18 As noted above, the Exchange similarly believes, that for purposes of calculating the VWAP settlement price for FROs based on individual stocks and ETFs, “composite prices” should be used. As a result, the Exchange would use composite prices of the underlying securities to calculate the VWAP settlement price for FROs. In contrast to traditional options, the Exchange, not OCC, would determine the underlying security prices and calculate the VWAP settlement price. 18 *Id* . In a case where the underlying security does not trade during regular trading hours on the last trading day prior to expiration or a last sale price is not obtainable either due to a trading halt or unreliable pricing, OCC has the discretionary authority to set a closing price on such basis as it believes appropriate under the circumstances. 19 OCC currently performs this function for standardized options traded by all options exchanges. The Exchange believes that in most cases OCC will use the last sale price reported during regular trading hours on the most recent trading day for which a last sale price is available. 19 OCC Rule 805(j) defines the term “closing price” to mean the last reported sale price for the underlying security on the trading day immediately preceding the expiration date on such national securities exchange or other domestic securities market as the Corporation shall determine. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an underlying security was not traded on such market on the trading day immediately preceding the expiration date or if the underlying security was traded on such trading day but the Corporation is unable to obtain a last sale price, the Corporation may, in its discretion:

(i)Fix a closing price on such basis as it deems appropriate in the circumstances (including, without limitation, using the last sale price during regular trading hours on the most recent trading day for which a last sale price is available); or

(ii)suspend the application of the ex-by-ex procedure to option contracts for which that security is an underlying security. Listing Requirements The Exchange proposes that, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in Amex Rule 915 (Initial Listing), an FRO may be initially listed only on an individual stock issued by a company that has:

(i)A market capitalization of at least $40 billion;

(ii)minimum trading volume over the last 12 months of at least one billion shares;

(iii)minimum average daily trading volume of at least four million shares;

(iv)minimum average daily value traded of at least $200 million during the prior six months; and

(v)the market price per share of the underlying security has been at least $10 during the five consecutive business days preceding listing. The underlying security price per share is measured by the closing price reported in the primary listed market in which the underlying security is traded. 20 20 *See* Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 915 for the current options listing criteria. With respect to ETFs, the Exchange proposes that, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in Amex Rule 915 (Initial Listing), an FRO may be listed only on an ETF that has:

(i)A minimum trading volume over the last 12 months of at least one billion shares;

(ii)a minimum average daily trading volume of at least four million shares;

(iii)a minimum average daily value traded of at least $200 million during the prior six months; and

(iv)the market price per share of the underlying security has been at least $10 during the five consecutive business days preceding listing. To be eligible for additional FRO series, the Exchange proposes that, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in Amex Rule 916 (Continued Listing), 21 an underlying stock have:

(i)A market capitalization of at least $30 billion;

(ii)a minimum trading volume over the last 12 months of at least one billion shares;

(iii)a minimum average daily trading volume of four million shares;

(iv)a minimum average daily value traded of $125 million during the prior six months; and

(v)a market price per share of at least $5. For intra-day series additions, the market price of an underlying security is measured by the last reported trade in the primary listed market in which the underlying security trades at the time the Exchange determines to add these additional series. In the case of next-day or expiration series additions, the market price of an underlying security is measured by the closing price reported in the primary listed market on the last trading day before the series are added. 21 *See* Commentaries .01 and .02 to Amex Rule 916 for the current options continuing listing criteria. For additional FRO series based on ETFs, the Exchange proposes that, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in Amex Rule 916 (Continued Listing), an underlying ETF have:

(i)A minimum trading volume over the last 12 months of at least one billion shares;

(ii)a minimum average daily trading volume of four million shares;

(iii)a minimum average daily value traded of $125 million during the prior six months; and

(iv)a market price per share of at least $5. Proposed Amex Rules 915FRO and 916FRO detail these requirements. The Exchange believes that this proposal for listing FROs on individual stocks and ETFs is consistent with current requirements for traditional options. In connection with individual stocks, Amex believes that a higher standard is appropriate for such listings. By providing heightened listing standards for underlying securities that may be the basis for FROs—consisting of market capitalization, 12-month trading volume, average daily trading volume, average daily trading value, and a minimum market price per share—the Exchange believes that the potential and/or susceptibility of manipulation is greatly reduced. In the case of ETFs, Ames has proposed that only actively traded and well capitalized ETFs may underlie an FRO. Amex believes that, based on the proposed initial and continued listing standards, the susceptibility to manipulation is severely dampened. Position and Exercise Limits Amex proposes that an FRO based on an individual stock or ETF have a position limit of 25,000 contracts. Existing hedge exemptions found in Amex Rules 904 and 904C would not apply to FROs; however, the facilitation exemption to position limits currently available to members would apply in the case of FROs in connection with facilitating customer FRO orders. FROs would not be subject to exercise limits due to the fact that FROs are European-style options 22 and are automatically exercised only if the settlement price is in the money. 22 *See supra* note 10. The Exchange believes that position limits for FROs should not be aggregated with the position limits of existing standardized options on the same underlying security. Amex believes that the non-linear ( *i.e.* , “all-or-nothing”) nature of FROs as well as the risk/return profile for FROs provides significant differences to existing standardized options that render aggregation of position limits inconsistent. In addition, the automatic exercise feature of an FRO also supports Amex's belief that an exercise limit should not be imposed because FROs by definition cannot be exercised over a five-day period. 23 23 Unlike with traditional equity options, exercise instructions are not entered for FROs because the contract is automatically exercised pursuant to the contract if the settlement price exceeds the strike price. Position limits restrict the number of options contracts that an investor, or a group of investors acting in concert, may own or control. Similarly, exercise limits prohibit the exercise of more than a specified number of contracts on a particular instrument within five business days. Position limits on exchange-traded options are designed to:

(i)Minimize the potential for mini-manipulations 24 as well as other forms of market manipulation;

(ii)impose a ceiling on the position that an investor with inside corporate or market information can establish; and

(iii)reduce the possibility of disruption in the options and underlying cash markets. 24 Mini-manipulation is an attempt to influence, over a relatively small range, the price movement in a stock to benefit a previously established options position. Amex believes that the structure of FROs—especially the “all-day” VWAP settlement pricing, heightened listing requirements for individual stocks and ETFs underlying FROs, and lower position limits—should allay regulatory concerns of potential manipulation. In particular, Amex notes that, for individual stocks underlying an FRO, in addition to the existing listing requirements, the Exchange has proposed heightened continuing or maintenance listing standards of:

(i)At least $30 billion in market capitalization;

(ii)a minimum trading volume of at least one billion shares over the last 12 months;

(iii)a minimum average daily trading volume of at least four million shares;

(iv)a minimum average daily trading value of $125 million; and

(v)a minimum market price per share of the underlying security of $5. 25 ETFs underlying an FRO would be subject to the same continued listing standards except for the minimum market capitalization requirement. These heightened listing requirements would provide that only the most highly liquid securities may underlie an FRO. In addition, Amex believes that the proposed FRO settlement pricing based on an “all-day” VWAP would greatly reduce the ability to use FROs for manipulative purposes. 25 As of March 5, 2007, 60 stocks and 11 ETFs would qualify for FROs. FROs would not be subject to any “qualified hedge exemptions” from the standard position and exercise limits that currently exist for traditional options. Consistent with non-FRO or traditional options, positions in FROs would have to be reported to the Exchange when an account establishes an aggregate same-side-of-the-market position of 200 or more FROs. The Exchange also would require that each member or member organization (other than an Exchange specialist or registered trader) that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 25,000 FROs, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information. This data would include, but would not be limited to, the FRO position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge and, if applicable, the collateral used to carry the position. The Exchange believes that the reporting requirements under Amex Rule 906 and the surveillance procedures for hedged positions would enable the Exchange to closely monitor sizable FRO positions and corresponding hedges. 26 26 Hedge information for member firm and customer accounts having 200 or more contracts are electronically reported via the Large Options Positions Report. Specialist and registered options trader account information is also reported to Amex by such member's clearing firm. In addition, a member firm is required to report hedge information for any proprietary or customer account that maintains an options position in excess of 10,000 contracts. These procedures would apply to FROs. The Exchange further believes that financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in FROs. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a member must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer. The Exchange has the authority under paragraph (d)(2)(k) of Amex Rule 462 to impose a higher margin requirement upon the member or member organization when the Exchange determines a higher requirement is warranted. Contract Adjustments FROs will be subject to adjustments for corporate and other actions in accordance with the rules of OCC. The general rule for adjustments in connection with FROs is that, regardless of the corporate action, the settlement value (paid in cash) of the FRO would always be $100. 27 27 Article VI, Section 11(c) of OCC's By-Laws provide the general rule that there will be no adjustments to reflect ordinary cash dividends or distributions or ordinary stock dividends or distributions. In the case of even splits 28 and uneven splits, 29 OCC and the Exchange believe that FROs should be adjusted by changing the strike price of the contract. 28 An “even split” is a case where the stock distribution or stock split results in one or more whole numbers of shares of the underlying security issued with respect to each outstanding share. 29 An “uneven split” is a case where the stock distribution or stock split results in other than whole numbers of shares of the underlying security issued with respect to each outstanding share. OCC submitted a proposed rule change with the Commission on November 18, 2004 (OCC File No. SR-OCC-2004-21) to enable it to issue, clear, and settle FROs. The OCC proposal would allow it to process FRO transactions in accordance with procedures that are substantially similar to its existing well established systems and procedures for the clearance and settlement of traditional exchange-traded options. Margin Consistent with Amex Rule 462(c)(11) and proposed new paragraph (d)(10) of Amex Rule 462, the initial and maintenance margin for long positions in FROs would have to equal at least 100% of the purchase price of the option ( *i.e.* , the premium). 30 In connection with short positions in FROs, the customer margin required is the difference between $100 and the proceeds received from the sale of the FRO. Amex believes that this proposed margin treatment is adequate and should not be otherwise based on the behavior of the underlying security, given the fact that the greatest amount at risk for an option writer of an FRO is the payout amount of $100. As with existing equity options, short FRO positions could be carried in a cash account (not subject to margin) and deemed “covered,” provided that proposed new paragraph (d)(10)(F) of Amex Rule 462 were applicable. “Covered” for purposes of an FRO is deemed to exist where the writer's obligation is secured by a specific deposit or escrow deposit meeting the entire obligation of $100 on the FRO. This standard is similar to the available “cover” for existing exchange-traded options under Amex Rules 462(d)(2)(I) and 900(b)(23). 30 New York Stock Exchange Regulation (“NYSER”) confirmed to Amex that the proposed margin requirements are appropriate. NYSER represented that prior to the launch of FROs, a regulatory circular to members would be issued detailing the margin requirements in connection with FROs. Options Disclosure Document As noted above, the OCC submitted a proposed rule change with the Commission to accommodate the listing and trading of FROs. 31 In addition, the OCC will also seek a revision to the Options Disclosure Document (“ODD”) to incorporate FROs. 31 *See* File No. SR-OCC-2004-21. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act, 32 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 33 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 facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 32 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of 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 not received any written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the ** Federal Register ** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 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-2004-27 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-Amex-2004-27. 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 Exchange. 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-2004-27 and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 34 34 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10970 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55824; File No. SR-Amex-2007-52] Self-Regulatory Organization; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Floor Broker Zone Requirements in AEMI June 4, 2007. Correction In FR Doc. No. E7-10680, beginning on page 30891 for Monday, June 4, 2007, the release number was incorrectly stated as 34-58824. The correct release number appears above. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10980 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55838; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-51] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of Pilot Program for Initial and Continued Financial Listing Standards for Common Stock Until November 30, 2007 May 31, 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 May 30, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change 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 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 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 extend until November 30, 2007, the six-month pilot program (the “Pilot Program”) which amended the Exchange's financial listing standards for the common stock of operating companies. 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 self-regulatory organization 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. The self-regulatory organization has 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 NYSE Arca has amended on a six-month pilot program basis the rules governing the NYSE Arca Marketplace to amend the financial listing standards for common stock of operating companies. 5 The Pilot Program expired on May 29, 2007. The Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot Program until November 30, 2007. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54796 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 69166 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-85). 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 7 in particular. The proposed rule change furthers these objectives by preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 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 will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 9 thereunder because the proposal does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 10 The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement, and the Commission has agreed to waive the requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 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 requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal would allow the Pilot Program to continue without any interruption, until November 30, 2007. 12 The Commission further notes that no comments were received on the pilot program. 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 12 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 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 proposed 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 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-NYSEArca-2007-51 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-NYSEArca-2007-51. 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 Exchange. 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-NYSEArca-2007-51 and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10926 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 04/04-0298] Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P. One Riverchase Parkway South, Birmingham, Alabama, 35244, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings Which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2003)). Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide a loan to Delta CompuTec LLC, 2 Sound View Drive, Suite 100, Greenwich, CT 06830. The financing is contemplated for DCI's expansion through a potential new acquisition. The financing is brought within the purview of Section 107.730

(1)of the Regulations because Harbinger Mezzanine Partners, LP, an Associate of Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P., currently owns greater than 10 percent of Delta CompuTec LLC, and therefore, Delta CompuTec LLC, is considered an Associate of Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P. as defined in Section 105.50 of the regulations. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within 15 days, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Jaime Guzman-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E7-10990 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10887] Kentucky Disaster #KY-00009 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1703-DR), dated 05/25/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Rockslides *Incident Period:* 04/14/2007 through 04/15/2007. *Effective Date:* 05/25/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/24/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/25/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Carter, Floyd, Johnson, Knott, Lawrence, Leslie, Martin, Perry, Pike. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10887. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-10988 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10885 and #10886] Minnesota Disaster #MN-00008 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Minnesota dated 05/30/2007. *Incident:* Fires. *Incident Period:* 05/05/2007 through 05/12/2007. *Effective Date:* 05/30/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/30/2007. *Economic Injury

(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/03/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Cook. *Contiguous Counties:* Minnesota: Lake. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10885 5 and for economic injury is 10886 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Minnesota. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: May 30, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-10989 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10888] Rhode Island Disaster #RI-00003 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-1704-DR), dated 05/25/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding. *Incident Period:* 04/15/2007 through 04/16/2007 *Effective Date:* 05/25/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/24/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/25/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Newport. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10888. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-10986 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5804] Overseas Schools Advisory Council Notice of Meeting The Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State, will hold its Annual Meeting on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 1498, New Conference Center, Department of State Building, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community in improving those American-sponsored schools overseas, which are assisted by the Department of State and which are attended by dependents of U.S. Government families and children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad. This meeting will deal with issues related to the work and the support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to the American-sponsored overseas schools. The agenda includes a review of the recent activities of American-sponsored overseas schools and the overseas schools regional associations and a review of projects selected for the 2006 and 2007 Educational Assistance Programs, which are under development. Members of the general public may attend the meeting and join in the discussion, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admittance of public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the State Department is controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should so advise the office of Dr. Keith D. Miller, Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools, Room H328, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0132, telephone 202-261-8200, prior to June 18, 2007. Each visitor will be asked to provide his/her date of birth and either driver's license, passport, or Social Security number at the time of registration and attendance and must carry a valid photo ID to the meeting. All attendees must use the 21st Street entrance to the building. Dated: May 30, 2007. Keith D. Miller, Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council,Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-11013 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [OST Docket No. 2007-27401 and OST Docket No. 2003-11473] RIN 2105-ADO4 Request for Public Comments and Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Approval of an Existing Information Collection (2105-0551) AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT. ACTION: Correction notice. SUMMARY: This notice requests public participation in the Office of Management and Budget approval process for the renewal of an existing OST information collection. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request

(ICR)described below has been forwarded to OMB for extension of the currently approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information and the expected burden. OST published a **Federal Register** notice soliciting comments on the following collection of information and received none. The purpose of this notice is to allow the public an additional 30 days from the date of this notice to submit comments and to make a correction to the recently published application to renew ICR 2105-0551, “Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints.” DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on this action must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited at the beginning of this document and must be submitted to the Docket Management Facility, Office of the Secretary, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The DOT Docket Facility is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. Comments will be available for inspection at this address and will also be viewable via the Web site for the Docket Management System at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, D.C. 20590,

(202)366-9342 (voice),

(202)366-7152 (Fax), *blane.workie@dot.gov* (E-mail). Arrangements to receive this document in an alternative format may be made by contacting the above-named individuals. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The application to renew this information collection request, which was published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, March 1, 2007 (72 FR 9385), describes only one of the three information collection requirements imposed on the airlines by a July 8, 2003 final rule. More specifically, it addressed the requirement for each covered carrier to submit an annual report summarizing the disability-related complaint data but did not address the requirement for such carriers to record and categorize disability-related complaints that they receive according to type of disability and nature of complaint on a standard form nor the requirement for carriers to retain correspondence and record of action taken for all disability-related complaints. This notice provides detailed information about the two information collection requirements which were inadvertently not included in the March 2007 notice announcing the Department's intention to renew approval of the ICR on the “Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints” and corrects some of the information provided about the other information collection requirement (i.e., requirement to submit an annual report summarizing the disability-related complaint data). It also explains that the Department believes that the total burden hours for the three information collection requirements would be 3418 hours instead of 8753 hours as estimated in 2003. The title, description, respondent description of the information collections and the annual recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden are provided below. It is worth noting that, while the formulas upon which the information collection calculations are based have not changed, the information collection burden hours have changed based on new information available to the Department. As stated above, the estimated total burden hours has been reduced from 8753 to 3418. ICR 2105-0551, “Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints”

(1)Requirement to read, record and categorize each disability related complaint from a passenger or on behalf of a passenger. *Respondents:* Certificated U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers operating to and from the United States that conduct passenger-carrying service with large aircraft. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 0 minutes to 875 hours a year for each respondent (time to record and categorize one complaint [15 minutes] multiplied by the number of complaints respondents receive [0 complaint a year to 3,500 annual complaints a year]. The number of complaints received by carriers varies greatly. In 2003, we estimated that carriers would receive anywhere from 1 complaint a year to 4,000 annual complaints a year. Based on data provided by carriers in 2004, 2005, and 2006, we believe that a range of 0 to 3500 annual complaints a year is more accurate. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 3238 hours for all respondents (time to record and categorize one complaint [15 minutes] multiplied by the total number of complaints for all respondents [12,952]). In 2003, we estimated that the total number of complaints for all respondents would be 33,050. Based on a review of the data provided by carriers, it appears that our 2003 estimate was too high. Carriers received a total of 11,508 complaints in 2004, a total of 13,584 complaints in 2005, and a total of 13,764 complaints in 2006 for an average of 12,952 annual complaints. *Frequency:* 0 to 3,000 complaints per year for each respondent (Some carriers may not receive any complaint in a given year while some of the larger operators could receive 3,000 annual complaints).

(2)Requirement to submit a report to DOT summarizing the disability-related complaint data (key-punching web-based matrix report). *Respondents:* Certificated U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers operating to and from the United States that conduct passenger-carrying service with large aircraft. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 30 minutes a year for each respondent to type in the 169 items (matrix consists of 13 disabilities and 13 service problems). *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 80 hours for all respondents (annual burden [30 minutes] multiplied by the total number respondents [160]). In 2003, we estimated the total number of respondents to be anywhere from 295 to 370. However, based on the number of carriers that reported data in 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well as the carriers that did not but should have submitted such data, we now believe that the total number of respondents is approximately 160. *Frequency:* 1 report to DOT per year for each respondent. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 160 (frequency of report [1 per year] multiplied by the total number of respondents [160].

(3)Requirement to retain correspondence and record of action taken on all disability-related complaints for three years. *Respondents:* Foreign air carriers operating to and from the United States that conduct passenger carrying service with large aircraft. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1 hour a year for each respondent. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 100 hours for all respondents (annual burden [1 hour] multiplied by the total number respondents [100]. In 2003, we estimated that the total number of foreign air carriers that would be required to submit an annual report to DOT would be 231 to 306. However, we have found that not all of the foreign air carriers that have authority to fly into the U.S. actually do so. It appears that the total number of foreign air carriers that would be covered is approximately 100. *Frequency:* 0 to 300 complaints per year for each respondent. The data provided by foreign air carriers operating to and from the United States that conduct passenger carrying service with large aircraft demonstrates that that number of complaints received by such carriers varies greatly from a low of 0 to a high of almost 300. *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. As noted earlier, OST published a **Federal Register** notice with a 60 day comment period for this ICR on Thursday, March 1, 2007 (72 FR 9385). Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2007, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1. Rosalind A. Knapp, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-11094 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC)Approvals and Disapprovals AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Monthly notice of PFC approvals and disapprovals. In May 2007, there were seven applications approved. This notice also includes information on four applications, one approved in February 2007 and the other three approved in April 2007, inadvertently left off the February 2007 and April 2007 notices, respectively. Additionally, 12 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed. SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monty notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. No. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29. PFC Applications Approved *Public Agency:* City of Little Rock, Arkansas. *Application Number:* 07-06-C-00-LIT. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision:* $21,763,270. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* May 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* January 1, 2011. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Little Rock National Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* In-line baggage system. Improve airport drainage—phase II. Taxiway in-pavement edge and centerline lights. Interactive employee training system. Friction testing vehicle. Terminal planning documents. *Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and Use:* Passenger loading bridge acquisition and replacement. *Determination:* The acquisition of a loading bridge for gate No. 8 is not approved. The public agency did not provide adequate information to confirm that it could meet the requirements of Part 158, Assurance No. 8 for this loading bridge. *Decision Date:* February 27, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Glenn Boles, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office,

(817)222-5661. *Public Agency:* County of Houghton, Calumet, Michigan. *Application Number:* 07-11-C-00-CMX. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision:* $464,744. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* November 2, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* February 1, 2013. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's:* None *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Vegetation removal to reduce wildlife habitat. Air service grant for airport security. FAA navigational aids. Rehabilitate taxiway B. Snow removal equipment procurement (motor grader). Terminal study, cost benefit analysis. Master plan study airport layout plan update. Pavement management program report. Rehabilitate/relocate airport entrance road. Snow removal equipment procurement (material spreader). PFC preparation reimbursement. PFC audit reimbursement. Firearm procurement. Fire inspection program. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection:* Remove sewage lagoons. *Decision Date:* April 12, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Jason Watt, Detroit Airports District Office,

(734)239-2906. *Public Agency* : County of Gogebic, Ironwood, Michigan. *Application Number:* 07-02-C-00-IWD. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $133,060. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* June 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* February 1, 2017. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Charter and air taxi operators. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Gogebic—Iron County Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Airport layout plan. Environmental assessment and preliminary design engineering. Security fencing. Environmental assessment and preliminary design engineering for crosswind runway phase 2 and wildlife study. Acquire snow removal equipment. Passenger parking lot. Acquire meter friction tester, wind cones, and fire suits. Acquire and install 12,000-gallon Jet A fuel tank. *Decision Date:* April 27, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Jason Watt, Detroit Airports District Office,

(734)229-2906. *Public Agency:* John Murtha Johnstown—Cambria County Airport Authority, Johnstown, Pennsylvania. *Application Number:* 07-05-C-00-JST. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $132,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* July 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* April 1, 2010. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Nonscheduled/on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Johnstown—Cambria County Airport. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:* Terminal building construction. *Decision Date:* April 30, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports District Office,

(717)730-2835. *Public Agency:* City of Hailey and County of Blaine, Hailey, Idaho. *Application Number:* 07-06-C-00-SUN. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $691,368. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* August 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* December 1, 2009. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Friedman Memorial Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Runway safety area improvements. Runway 13/31 reconstruction. Environmental Impact statement (phase 1) for replacement airport. Security enhancements. PFC administrative costs for application 05-05. PFC administrative costs for application 07-06. *Decision Date:* May 3, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Suzanne Lee-Pang, Seattle Airports District Office,

(425)227-2654. *Public Agency:* City of Naples Airport Authority, Naples, Florida. *Application Number:* 07-05-C-00-APF. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* Not applicable. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $92,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* Decision uses excess PFC revenue—no new collections authorized. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* Not applicable. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* None. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Rehabilitate taxiway B (design). *Decision Date:* May 8, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District Office,

(407)812-6331, extension 120. *Public Agency:* Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, Nashville, Tennessee. *Application Number:* 07-13-C-00-BNA. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $3.00. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $19,250,588. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* June 1, 2011. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* November 1, 2011. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Nashville International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Security checkpoint (design and construction). Terminal renovation. Reconstruct taxiway Bravo south (design). Reconstruct taxiway Alpha south (design). Outbound baggage conveyor system (design and construction). Access control system replacement (design and construction). Construct 2L/20R runway safety area. Pavement management and modification of standards identification study. Runway weather information system. Construct 2R/20L runway safety area. Land acquisition for Elm Hill Pike. Aircraft flight track monitoring system. *Decision Date:* May 10, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Peggy Kelley, Memphis Airports District Office,

(901)322-8186. *Public Agency:* Airport Authority of Washoe County, Reno, Nevada. *Application Number:* 07-10-C-00-RNO. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $32,878,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* December 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* December 1, 2010. *Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:*

(1)Nonscheduled/on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31; and

(2)commuter or small certificated air carriers filing Form T-100. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Reno/Tahoe International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Jet bridge equipment upgrade. South air cargo ramp—phase 1. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Concourse elbow build out phase II. *Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and Use at $3.00 PFC Level:* Acquire replacement snow removal equipment. *Decision Date:* May 11, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Ronald Biaco, San Francisco Airports District Office,

(650)876-2778, extension 626. *Public Agency:* Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority, Topeka, Kansas. *Application Number:* 07-01-C-00-FOE. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $823,720. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* August 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* March 1, 2023. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* None. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Overlay ramp north of terminal. Auxiliary generator. Airfield signage. Snow removal equipment. Aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment. Runway 13/31 rehabilitation. Airport master plan update. Foreign object debris sweeper. Taxiways A, B, C, and D rehabilitation. PFC application and administration fees. *Decision Date:* May 18, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Jeffrey Deitering, Central Region Airports Division,

(816)329-2637. *Public Agency:* City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska. *Application Number:* 07-01-C-00-SIT. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $1,100,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* July 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* June 1, 2012 *Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's:* None. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Rehabilitate terminal building. *Decision Date:* May 21, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* John Lovett, Alaska Region Airports Division,

(907)271-5446. *Public Agency:* Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Buffalo, New York. *Application Number:* 07-06-C-00-BUF. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $75,389,056. *Charge Effective Date for $3.00 Collections:* October 1, 2005. *Earliest Charge Effective Date for $4.50 Collections:* August 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* August 1, 2011. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF). *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at BUF and Use at BUF at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Purchase safety equipment—aircraft rescue and firefighting/emergency response vehicles. Design and construction, extension and rehabilitation of runway 5/23. Design and construction, extension and rehabilitation of taxiway A. Automatic baggage system. Design and construction of a water quality treatment and improvement system. Design and implement noise mitigation measures. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at BUF and Use at BUF at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Relocation of security checkpoints. Runway 14/32 safety improvements and relocate remote fuel dispensing facility. Passenger movement equipment. Upgrade security badging system. PFC planning and program administration. Series 1999 debt service—east concourse terminal extension and apron expansion, and east access improvements. Design and construction, extension of runway 14/32. Design and construction, extension, widening, and rehabilitation of taxiway D. Design and construction, overhead canopies for pedestrian walkways. Purchase of surface friction testing equipment. Internal perimeter road extension. PFC planning and program administration. *Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection at BUF and Use at BUF at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Procurement of security equipment—vehicles. *Determination:* Two K-9 vehicles and a “captain's vehicle” were found to be ineligible because the public agency did not provide documentation that the Transportation Security Administration had concurred that these vehicles were a part of the minimum amount of equipment needed to meet the approved security plan. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at BUF and Use at BUF and at Niagara Falls International Airport at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Purchase snow removal equipment. *Brief Description of Disapproved Project:* PFC planning and program administration. *Determination:* The public agency included this project as a part of an amendment request. However, this project was not included in the original decision and a public agency cannot add a new project by amendment. *Decision Date:* May 25, 2007. *For Further Information Contact:* Larry A'Hearn, New York Airports District Office,

(516)227-3810. Amendment to PFC Approvals Amendment No. City, state Amendment approved date Original approved net PFC revenue Amended approved net PFC revenue Original estimated charge exp. date Amended estimated charge exp. date 01-08-C-02-CMX Hancock, MI 04/12/07 $254,644 $268,191 10/01/05 10/01/05 04-03-C-01-HGR Hagerstown, MD 04/25/07 415,188 108,124 12/01/07 12/01/07 *03-05-C-01-MBS Saginaw, MI 04/30/07 1,378,794 1,378,794 08/01/09 04/01/08 99-03-C-01-CIC Chico, CA 05/08/07 89,300 25,000 02/01/01 02/01/01 04-08-C-02-RNO Reno, NV 05/08/07 21,749,000 26,712,865 08/01/07 08/01/07 95-01-C-02-EAU Eau Claire, WI 05/08/07 757,028 708,253 09/01/05 01/01/06 05-05-C-02-SJU San Juan, PR 05/15/07 334,635,482 352,632,482 05/01/27 11/01/28 96-01-C-02-TRI Bristol, TN 05/16/07 5,859,025 5,273,873 11/01/05 11/01/05 97-03-C-01-MSN Madison, WI 05/17/07 2,305,000 2,340,000 12/01/99 12/01/99 98-04-C-02-JST Johnstown, PA 05/18/07 628,121 496,121 10/01/06 01/01/07 97-03-C-06-DFW Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 05/18/07 121,412,427 114,679,598 04/01/01 04/01/01 *99-02-C-01-TRI Bristo, TN 05/24/07 5,829,873 5,247,633 08/01/13 03/01/12 Note: The amendments denoted by an asterisk (*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. For Saginaw, MI and Bristol, TN, this change is effective on July 1, 2007. Issued in Washington, DC on June 4, 2007. Joe Hebert, Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch. [FR Doc. 07-2833 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents

U.S. Code