Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-02 · National Park Service, Department of the Interior · Notices

Notices. Notice; correction

50,469 words·~229 min read·/register/2007/07/02/07-3195·

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

BILLING CODE 4310-5L-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park General Management Plan Amendment AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 853, the National Park Service
(NPS)announces the availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD)on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)for the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park General Management Plan Amendment, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, Ohio. On May 16, the Regional Director, Midwest Region, approved the ROD for the project. As soon as practicable, the NPS will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the Final EIS issued on April 13. The following course of action will occur under the Preferred Alternative. The park will continue to serve traditional visitors to national parks; however, the primary goal will be to increase regional involvement, particularly in interpretation, education, and outreach. Visitors can expect an active participatory experience that will broaden and expand the park's literary and aviation significance. There will be a new at-grade entrance to the Huffman Prairie Flying Field and a maintenance facility shared by the park and partners. This course of action and two other alternatives were analyzed in the Draft and Final EIS. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed and appropriate mitigating measures were identified. The ROD includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, a finding on impairment of park resources and values, a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm, an overview of public involvement in the decisionmaking process, and a conclusion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Lawrence Blake, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, 16 South Williams Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402, telephone 937-225-7705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the ROD may be obtained from the contact listed above or may be viewed online at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/.* Dated: May 16, 2007. Ernest Quintana, Regional Director, Midwest Region. [FR Doc. E7-12715 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9312-88-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Final Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report; Giacomini Wetlands Restoration Project; Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, CA; Notice of Availability *Summary:* Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)identifying and evaluating the no-action alternative and four action alternatives for the restoration of the Giacomini wetlands. When approved, the plan will guide the National Park Service in restoration and public access actions for lands at the headwaters of Tomales Bay, Marin County, California. Because some of the proposed restoration project area includes state, county and private lands, the document also fulfills California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)requirements as a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The California State Lands Commission
(CALC)is the CEQA lead agency for this project. Through the FEIS/EIR, the potential impacts of the five alternatives are assessed and, where appropriate, measures to avoid or reduce the intensity of potential effects are identified. Three preliminary restoration options that were considered, but rejected because they did not achieve restoration objectives or were infeasible, are also described in the FEIS/EIR. *Project Planning Background:* Point Reyes National Seashore is a unit of the National Park Service
(NPS)located in western Marin County, California. It was established by Congress on September 13, 1962, “to save and preserve, for the purpose of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped” (Pub. L. 87-657). A large portion of Tomales Bay watershed lands were acquired by the NPS in the 1960s and 1970s for establishment of two neighboring parks—Point Reyes National Seashore (Seashore) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). In 1980, the boundary for GGNRA was expanded to include the Waldo Giacomini Ranch (Giacomini Ranch) and the eastern portion of Tomales Bay. The Giacomini Ranch falls within the north district of the GGNRA, which is administered by the Seashore. The Seashore and CALC are proposing to restore historic wetlands at Giacomini Ranch in Tomales Bay, an embayment that borders the Seashore to the east and north. The Giacomini Ranch property was once part of a large tidal marsh complex at the southern end of Tomales Bay that also encompassed portions of Olema Marsh (a 60-acre freshwater marsh that is partially owned by the NPS). The Giacomini property was diked in 1946 and has been used by the Waldo Giacomini family as a dairy since then. The property was purchased from the Giacomini family in 2000. Partial funding for the purchase came from the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), which was under obligation to the California Coastal Commission
(CCC)to mitigate for impacts resulting from the Lone Tree road repair along State Route 1 conducted in the early 1990s. The CCC eventually allowed CalTrans to fulfill mitigation obligations by making funds available to the NPS to purchase, restore, and manage a replacement wetland site. While the NPS is obligated under its agreement with CalTrans and CCC to mitigate only a total of 3.6 acres, the Seashore believes that the potential value of the historic salt marsh is significant not only to the NPS and its resource conservation objectives, but to the Tomales Bay watershed ecosystem as a whole. Tomales Bay was recently declared impaired for sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Coastal wetlands act as both a food source and filtering system for estuarine and marine systems, and the loss of these wetlands in many parts of the bay has contributed to this designation. The diking of the Giacomini property resulted in the loss of hydrologic connectivity and diminished delta functionality for more than 50 percent of the coastal tidal wetlands present in Tomales Bay in the late 1800s. Restoration would reestablish hydrologic connectivity between Tomales Bay and the project area, resulting in increased wetland functionality. The project purpose and goals reflect a broad ecosystem-level approach to restoration. The purpose of the proposed project is to restore natural hydrologic processes within a significant portion of the project area, thereby promoting restoration of ecological processes and functions. Three goals, which further support the overall purpose, were also developed, as follows: • Restore natural, self-sustaining tidal, fluvial (streamflow), and groundwater hydrologic processes, thereby enabling reestablishment of some of the ecological processes and functions associated with wetland and riparian areas, such as water quality improvement, floodwater storage, food chain support, and wildlife habitat. • Pursue a watershed-based approach to restoration so as to emphasize opportunities to improve ecological conditions within the entire Tomales Bay watershed, not just in the project area itself. • To the extent possible, incorporate opportunities for the public to experience and enjoy the restoration process as long as opportunities do not conflict with the project's purpose or with NPS, CALC, or other agency legislation or policies. For these reasons, the NPS and CALC propose to restore natural hydrologic and ecological processes on most or all of the 563-acre property. The NPS and CALC developed a range of alternatives for accomplishing this restoration project that encompass a spectrum of hydrologic and topographic changes. However, there are a series of activities that would be conducted under all five alternatives, including: Discontinuation of agricultural land management on the property, removal of general agricultural infrastructure and buildings from upland areas, and periodic maintenance of creeks to ensure that sediment deposition does not elevate flood risk to adjacent properties. In addition, the Giacomini family would remove all personal property from the project area, including worker housing trailers near Mesa Road. Water rights to Lagunitas Creek, acquired as part of the transfer of ownership, would be dedicated to in-stream flow. The NPS would also enter into a lease agreement with the CALC for leasing of subtidal lands in Lagunitas Creek within the project area. Finally, the NPS will be working with the USGS on an effort to expand the tidewater Goby population within the southern portions of Tomales Bay. * Proposed Giacomini Wetlands Restoration: Extensive Restoration of the Giacomini Ranch East Pasture, Full Restoration of the West Pasture, and Restoration of Olema Marsh with Limited Public Access (Alternative D). * This alternative has been determined to be “environmentally preferred”, and involves complete removal of levees in both the West and East Pasture. In general, this alternative builds upon the actions proposed in *Alternative B* and *Alternative C* (see below) by fully realigning one of the leveed creeks within the Giacomini Ranch; excavating a portion of the ranch pasture into active intertidal marshplain and floodplain; increasing the amount of culvert replacement to improve hydraulic connectivity, streamflow, and passage of salmonid species; and increasing active revegetation and invasive non-native plant removal efforts. In addition, this alternative incorporates adaptive restoration of Olema Marsh (which is located south of Giacomini Ranch and White House Pool and is owned by Audubon Canyon Ranch
(ACR)and the NPS); this would include a phased approach to shallow channel excavation, vegetated berm removal, and potential replacement of Levee Road and/or Bear Valley Road culverts in the future should initial restoration efforts not achieve the desired degree of success. Public access components of *Alternative D* include an improved spur trail leading to the edge of the Dairy Mesa; an improved spur trail extension of the existing Tomales Bay Trail; an improved spur trail on the southern perimeter following the existing alignment of an informal social path; and an ADA-compliant path in White House Pool County Park. The NPS would also pursue working with Marin County (through separate environmental compliance) to consider additional public access facilities on the southern perimeter of the project area, including reevaluation of a trail along Levee Road, extension of a trail to Inverness Park, and, should other options not prove viable, a non-vehicular bridge across Lagunitas Creek. *Alternatives to Proposed Project:* Under the *No Action Alternative,* levees, tidegates, and culverts in the Giacomini Ranch will remain. An 11-acre area will be restored on the northeast corner of the east pasture to satisfy mitigation requirements for aquatic habitat impacts caused by CalTrans due to road repairs on State Route 1 in Marin County in exchange for the NPS receiving monies to purchase and restore the Giacomini Ranch. The remainder of the levees in the East Pasture and West Pasture would no longer be maintained. Under the *No Action Alternative* only, there is potential for limited grazing, with consultation conducted under a separate compliance process. Olema Marsh would not be restored, and there would be no new public access facilities. *Alternative A—Limited Restoration of the Giacomini Ranch East Pasture Only with Expanded Public Access, Including Culverted Earthen Fill Trail on Eastern Perimeter.* This alternative involves selective breaching of the East Pasture levee, while levees and tidegates in the West Pasture would not be removed. A limited amount of tidal channel creation, creek bank grading, and revegetation would also be performed in the East Pasture. Most of the actions under this alternative focus on removing agricultural infrastructure such as filling of ditches, ripping of compacted roads, fence removal, and removal of pumps, pipelines, and concrete spillways, as well as removal of ranch buildings. For future public access, the southern perimeter trail would include a prefabricated bridge across Lagunitas Creek, near the old summer dam location across from White House Pool County Park. The bridge design would place footings outside of the active channel, so as to not impinge on hydrologic processes. Future extension of the southern perimeter trail, in collaboration with the County of Marin, would connect White House Pool County Park with a path along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (that would either run alongside the road or move off the road at the southern end of the unrestored West Pasture onto a low-elevation boardwalk that would join back with Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Inverness Park). Other infrastructure constructed is a culverted berm through-trail on the eastern perimeter of the East Pasture. *Alternative B—Moderate Restoration of the Giacomini Ranch East Pasture and Limited Restoration of the West Pasture with Expanded Public Access, Including Boardwalk Trail on the Eastern Perimeter.* This alternative would completely remove the East Pasture levees and create several breaches in the West Pasture levee, as well as remove the tidegate on Fish Hatchery Creek. More tidal channel creation, grading, and revegetation would occur than under *Alternative A.* There would be no activities taken at Olema Marsh. Most of the new public access facilities would continue to be limited to the eastern and southern perimeters of the East Pasture, including construction of the pedestrian access bridge across Lagunitas Creek near the old summer dam, and extension of the southern perimeter trail to Inverness Park. The culverted berm through-trail on the eastern perimeter in *Alternative A* would instead be a boardwalk. On the West Pasture north levee, a viewing area would replace the existing informal trail. *Alternative C—Full Restoration of the Giacomini Ranch East and West Pastures and Restoration of Olema Marsh, with Moderate Public Access.* This alternative involves complete removal of levees in both the West and East Pasture. In general, this alternative would result in more tidal channel creation, grading, and revegetation than *Alternative B.* In addition, the project boundary is expanded to include Olema Marsh, which is located south of the Giacomini Ranch and White House Pool and is owned by ACR and the NPS. Olema Marsh and the Giacomini Ranch once formed an integrated tidal wetland complex. In *Alternative C,* there would be an adaptive approach for Olema Marsh restoration that would include phased shallow channel excavation and vegetated berm removal. Levee Road and Bear Valley Road culverts could be replaced in the future should initial restoration efforts not achieve the desired degree of success. Public access components include the southern perimeter path and proposed future trails as described under *Alternative A* and *Alternative B,* but there would be two spur trails rather than a through-trail on the eastern perimeter of the Giacomini Ranch. *Principal Differences Between the Draft and Final EIS/EIR:* *Change in Preferred Alternative:* The alternative preferred by the NPS and CALC has been changed to *Alternative D* from *Alternative C.* The lead agencies initially chose *Alternative C* as the Preferred Alternative as it appeared to best meet both wetland restoration goals and community public access needs. During public review of the DEIS/EIR, a large number of responses from the public, organizations, and agencies advocated selecting *Alternative D* because it was more compatible with restoration and would have less traffic, noise, pollution, and land use impacts. *Changes to Alternative D: Alternative D* has been modified slightly in the FEIS/EIR in response to public feedback so as to slightly decrease the degree of excavation, to remove eucalyptus from Tomasini Creek, and to construct an ADA-compliant trail and viewing platform at the nearby White House Pool County Park. In addition, this alternative now also incorporates the option for NPS to collaborate with Marin County in a separate environmental process on possible additional public access facilities on the southern perimeter of the project area (as noted above). *Change in Impact Determinations:* Because of refinement of construction scheduling and project design (identified in Chapter 2), the NPS and CALC have re-assessed some levels of impact identified, although none of these changes results in any “Significant, Unavoidable Impacts”, such that all major impacts are mitigated to moderate or lesser intensities. • Construction-related air quality impacts under *Alternative C* have been reduced to moderate, although *Alternative D* still would have major or substantial impacts that are mitigated to moderate levels through implementation of recommended Best Management Practices. • *Alternative A* and *Alternative B* would have major impacts on riparian habitat due to construction of the eastern perimeter trail that could conflict with state and local policies on riparian habitat protection, but these impacts would be mitigated to minor or moderate through active and passive revegetation efforts. • Major restoration actions in Olema Marsh identified as part of the adaptive restoration under *Alternative C* and *Alternative D* such as culvert replacement would not be implemented until the NPS can confirm these actions would not cause major impacts to municipal water supply through increasing water salinities in the portion of the Lagunitas Creek that is adjacent to municipal groundwater wells. *Summary of Public Engagement:* On September 23, 2002, a Notice of Intent
(NOI)to conduct public scoping to inform preparation of an EIS was published in the **Federal Register** . On September 25, 2002, a copy of the NOI and scoping information was sent to 45 landowners adjacent to the project area, and 163 persons and organizations on a public review request list maintained by the Seashore. On October 4, 2002, the NOI was sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse for distribution to relevant state agencies (SCH# 2002114002). Following agreement by CALC to act as the lead CEQA agency, a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)for preparation of a joint EIS/EIR was prepared by CALC, and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, which circulated the NOP between May 29 and June 30, 2003. The extensive public scoping period also closed on June 30, 2003. Oral comments were heard at a public information meeting at the October 19, 2002 Advisory Commission held at the Point Reyes Dance Palace where approximately 30 to 40 members of the public attended. In addition to the oral comments obtained, approximately 86 individuals or private organizations provided written comments regarding the proposed restoration. Regulatory scoping meetings were conducted on November 6, 2002 and November 8, 2002 during the public scoping period. The NPS and CALC received comments from seven local, state, or federal agencies. After the public scoping phase concluded on June 30, 2003, a staff report was prepared that summarized all information derived from the public scoping process. After a series of internal post-scoping discussions in spring 2004, the NPS and CALC hosted a series of information meetings with regulatory and local and state agencies, adjacent landowners, and local technical experts in the field of wetland restoration, to present and receive feedback on preliminary restoration and public access concepts. This phase culminated in a public workshop on June 22, 2004, at the Seashore Red Barn attended by more than 110 people. Following the June public workshop, all interested individuals and organizations were encouraged to submit comments to the NPS and CALC on the restoration concepts and scope of the proposed DEIS/EIR. Through July 23, 2004 written letters or e-mails from 58 individuals and 14 private organizations were received, as well as two petitions with a total of approximately 450 signatures. NPS staff also met with representatives of stakeholder groups from Marin County and interested agencies that requested briefings. In response to the comments received, the NPS and CALC contracted for two additional studies on public access options within the project area that evaluated potential impacts on resources and adjacent land uses, as well as technical feasibility and costs. As part of this effort, additional meetings were held with adjacent landowners and the general public in February-March, 2005. The Seashore's Notice of Availability for the DEIS/EIR was published in the **Federal Register** on November 3, 2006. The EPA's notification of filing of the DEIS/EIR was published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2006, formally initiating the 60-day public comment period. A notice that the DEIS/EIR had been also filed with the State Clearinghouse was published on December 18, 2006. The Seashore mailed over 450 letters regarding availability of the DEIS/EIR for public review on December 13, 2006 (this letter also announced a public meeting scheduled for January 25, 2007, at the Seashore Red Barn, and confirmed that the public comment period would end February 14, 2007). On December 14, 2006, a press release announcing the public meeting was distributed to the Point Reyes Light, Marin Independent Journal, and Press Democrat, as well as 28 other media outlets, including newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. Details about the public meeting were also posted on the Seashore's Web site. The Marin Independent Journal and Point Reyes Light published articles about release of the DEIS/EIR and the pending public meeting. Approximately 100 members of the public attended the January 25, 2007 meeting. The Point Reyes Light published an account of the meeting on February 1, 2007. Altogether approximately 180 interested individuals and organizations responded to release of the DEIS/EIR; approximately 170 were from private individuals. There were no form letters. More than 99 percent of the letters submitted were from residents of Marin County. Organizations providing comments included the Environmental Action Committee of Marin; Point Reyes Lodging Association; Marin County Bicycle Coalition/Community Pathways Committee/Access 4 Bikes; California Native Plant Society; Point Reyes Village Association; Sierra Club, Marin Chapter; and Tomales Bay Association. Ten responses were received from local, state, or federal agencies—the California Coastal Commission; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary; the North Marin Water District; the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District; the County of Marin Department of Public Works; the County of Marin Department of Parks and Open Space District; the State Department of Conservation; the State of California Department of Fish and Game; and the EPA. More than 90 percent of the oral and written comments received during the public meeting and throughout the comment period concerned the choice of *Alternative C* as the Preferred Alternative. A large number of comments also advocated modifications to either the existing Preferred Alternative or to *Alternative D,* with most of these proposed modifications focusing on changes to the public access components on the eastern and southern perimeters of the project area. On March 2, 2007, the EPA published its Lack of Objection
(LO)findings regarding the DEIS/EIR, noting that the “EPA supports the proposed project and believes it will significantly improve the hydrologic and ecological processes and functions in the Tomales Bay Watershed.” All written comments received and a summary of commentary from the January 25, 2007, public meeting are available for inspection at the Seashore Administration Building, 1 Bear Valley Road, Point Reyes Station, CA. Substantive comments and responses are documented in the FEIS/EIR. Copies of the FEIS/EIR may be obtained from the Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA 94956, Attn: Giacomini Wetlands Restoration Project, or by e-mail request to: *pore_planning@nps.gov* (in the subject line, type: Giacomini Wetlands Restoration Project). The document will be sent directly to those who have requested it, and also will be posted on the Internet at the Seashore's Web site *http://www.nps.gov/pore;* and both the printed document and digital version on compact disk will be available at the park headquarters and local libraries. *Decision:* As a delegated EIS/EIR, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. A Record of Decision, fully documenting the entire conservation planning and environmental decision-making process, will be prepared not sooner than 30 days following publication in the **Federal Register** of the EPA's notice of filing and availability of the Final EIS/EIR. Subsequently and prior to implementation, notice of approval of the Record of Decision will likewise be published in the **Federal Register** , as well as announced via local and regional news media. Following approval of the Giacomini Wetlands Restoration Project, the official responsible for project implementation will be the Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore. Dated: April 25, 2007. George J. Turnbull, Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. [FR Doc. E7-12714 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Pierce College District, Lakewood, WA; Correction AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; correction. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003 (5), of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Pierce College District, Lakewood, WA. The human remains were removed from site 45-PI-07, also known as the Purdy 1 site, at Carr Inlet, Pierce County, WA. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. This notice corrects the number of tribes that were determined to be culturally affiliated in a Notice of Inventory Completion previously published in the **Federal Register** of November 22, 2006 (FR Doc E6-19790, pages 67634-67635) by adding the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington. After publication in the **Federal Register** of the Notice of Inventory Completion, Pierce College District determined that the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington were also culturally affiliated with the Native American human remains from site 45-PI-07, also known as the Purdy 1 site, at Carr Inlet, Pierce County, WA. In the **Federal Register** of November 22, 2006, on page 67634, paragraph number 5, is corrected by substituting the following: Site 45-PI-07 is a shell mound measuring 5 feet high, 30 feet wide, and 120 feet long. Osteological and archeological analysis indicate that the human remains removed from site 45-PI-07 are of Native American ancestry, based on the presence of extreme degrees of dental wear, marked shoveling of the exposed permanent incisors, blunt nasal sills, rounded chins, squatting facets on the talus, and their flex-kneed burial position, and site context. Archeological materials recovered from the site indicate a wide range of use during the prehistoric and historic periods. Site 45-PI-07 is located within the area long occupied by the Shotlemamish, a Southern Lushootseed speaking group. Members of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington speak the Southern Lushootseed language. Around 1870s, remaining Shotlemamish, in what is now the Purdy I area, moved to the Puyallup Reservation where there were already Shotlemamish living on the reservation. Officials of Pierce College have reasonably determined that there is also a shared group identity through marriage between the Burley Lagoon, Purdy Washington Shotlemamish and Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington. Descendants of the Shotlemamish are members of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington. Officials of the Pierce College District have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 29 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Pierce College District also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington. Lastly, officials of the Pierce College District have determined that there is a preponderance of the evidence in favor of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington's claim. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Chris MacKersie, District Director of Safety & Security and Assistant Director of Facilities, Pierce College District, 9401 Farwest Drive SW, Lakewood, WA 98498, telephone
(253)912-3655, before August 1, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Pierce College District is responsible for notifying the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published. Dated: June 13, 2007 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-12712 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO. The human remains were removed from Montezuma County, CO. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Colorado Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah. In 1954, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were excavated by Hod Stevenson on his property at the edge of Yellow Jacket Canyon, Montezuma County, CO. In 1959, Mr. Stevenson donated the human remains and associated funerary objects to the museum. No known individual was identified. The seven associated funerary objects are two plain-weave, diyugi-style Navajo blankets; one coil of braided rawhide; one small piece of twined hair; one basket in the shape of a dipper; one lot of juniper bark; and one lot of charcoal. A piece of rolled leather was not collected when the burial was excavated. The human remains were found in a flexed, seated position facing east and wrapped in two plain-weave, diyugi-style Navajo blankets in an east-facing rock shelter, and appear to have been placed in a shallow pit. The burial had been covered with juniper bark and the pit had been filled with sandy sediment. In 1959, University of Colorado Museum curator, Joe Ben Wheat, visited the site and found a small charcoal pictograph of a long-legged horse and rider at the back of the rock shelter from which the burial had been removed. Based on the burial context, the human remains are Native American. The Indian Land Areas Judicially Established 1978 Map indicates the claim to land in southwestern Colorado is based upon historic use by the Ute and Navajo tribes. The style of the drawing found in the rock shelter is similar to historic Ute pictographs (Legacy on Stone, Sally J. Cole, 1990). An analysis of the blanket fragments places their manufacture at approximately A.D. 1800. Navajo diyugi-style blankets were commonly traded to northern allies in Colorado, such as the Ute, in the late 18th century. In the last 250 years, the presence of the Ute tribes in the area of western Colorado has been historically documented by both Spanish and U.S. records. The present northern boundary of the Ute Mountain Reservation is only 12 miles to the south of the burial site. In consultations, representatives of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah provided evidence in the form of histories and oral traditions that place their tribes in a very large area that encompasses the location of the burial. Representatives from both Indian tribes identified details about the burial as possibly Ute. At the estimated time of the burial, historical accounts located the Ute bands whose descendants are now members of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah in an area stretching from southwestern to south central Colorado to northwestern New Mexico. Historical accounts placed the other Ute bands whose descendants are members of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah in an area between the Gunnison River in Colorado and the Uintah Basin in Utah in A.D. 1800. Officials of the University of Colorado Museum reasonably believe the human remains are Ute based on the preponderance of the evidence including geographical, archeological, historical, oral-tradition, and expert opinion. Descendants of the Ute are members of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah Officials of the University of Colorado Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the University of Colorado Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the seven objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the University of Colorado Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Steve Lekson, Curator of Anthropology, University of Colorado Museum, Henderson Building, Campus Box 218, Boulder, CO 80309-0218, telephone
(303)492-6671, before August 1, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. University of Colorado Museum is responsible for notifying the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published. Dated: June 11, 2007 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-12711 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO; Correction AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; correction. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003 (5), of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO. The human remains and cultural items were removed from Adams, Arapahoe, Baca, Boulder, Fremont, Huerfano, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Saguache, Sedgwick, and Yuma Counties, CO This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of tribes that were determined to be culturally affiliated in a Notice of Inventory Completion previously published in the **Federal Register** of February 1, 2006 (FR Doc E6-1273, pages 5369-5373). The minimum number of individuals is raised from 47 to 48. The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico have been added to the list of culturally affiliated Indian Tribes. In the **Federal Register** of February 1, 2006, paragraph number 31 is corrected by substituting the following paragraph: In 1951, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from an unknown area near the old toll station in Boulder Canyon, Boulder County, CO. The human remains were either transferred to the University of Colorado Museum by another University of Colorado department or anonymously donated prior to 1993. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In the **Federal Register** of February 1, 2006, paragraph numbers 56 to 58 are corrected by substituting the following paragraphs: Officials of the University of Colorado Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of a minimum of 48 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the University of Colorado Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 79 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the University of Colorado Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Steve Lekson, Curator of Anthropology, University of Colorado Museum, Henderson Building, Campus Box 218, Boulder, CO 80309-0218, telephone
(303)492-6671, before August 1, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. University of Colorado Museum is responsible for notifying the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published. Dated: June 19, 2007 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-12713 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection; Activities Under OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0023). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) has forwarded the following Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval: Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426, OMB Control Number: 1006-0023. As a result of the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance with Federal reclamation law and assessment of the appropriate water rate [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2) and 43 CFR 426.9(b)], a new “Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet” (Form 7-2578) has been developed for approval as part of this information collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden. DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments must be received on or before August 1, 2007 to assure maximum consideration. ADDRESSES: You may send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, via facsimile to
(202)395-6566 or e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* . A copy of your comments should also be directed to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:
(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426. The former title of this information collection was “Limited Recipient Identification Sheet, Trust Information Sheet, Public Entity Information Sheet for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426.” Because of the addition of the proposed new form to this information collection as described below, we have changed the title of this information collection to “Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426.” This title change will allow us to capture the purpose of the forms in this information collection without listing lengthy form names. *Abstract: Identification of limited recipients* —Some entities that receive Reclamation irrigation water may believe that they are under the RRA forms submittal threshold and, consequently, may not submit the appropriate RRA form(s). However, some of these entities may in fact have a different RRA forms submittal threshold than what they believe it to be due to the number of natural persons benefiting from each entity and the location of the land held by each entity. In addition, some entities that are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms due to the size of their landholdings (directly and indirectly owned and leased land) may in fact be receiving Reclamation irrigation water for which the full-cost rate must be paid because the start of Reclamation irrigation water deliveries occurred after October 1, 1981 [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2)]. The information obtained through completion of the Limited Recipient Identification Sheet (Form 7-2536) allows us to establish entities' compliance with Federal reclamation law. The Limited Recipient Identification Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Limited Recipient Identification Sheet will be included starting in the 2008 water year, and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Trust review* —We are required to review and approve all trusts [43 CFR 426.7(b)(2)] in order to ensure trusts meet the regulatory criteria specified in 43 CFR 426.7. Land held in trust generally will be attributed to the beneficiaries of the trust rather than the trustee if the criteria are met. When we become aware of trusts with a relatively small landholding (40 acres or less), we may extend to those trusts the option to complete and submit for our review the Trust Information Sheet (Form 7-2537) instead of actual trust documents. If we find nothing on the completed Trust Information Sheet that would warrant the further investigation of a particular trust, that trustee will not be burdened with submitting trust documents to us for in-depth review. The Trust Information Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Trust Information Sheet will be included starting in the 2008 water year, and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Acreage limitation provisions applicable to public entities* —Land farmed by a public entity can be considered exempt from the application of the acreage limitation provisions provided the public entity meets certain criteria pertaining to the revenue generated through the entity's farming activities (43 CFR 426.10 and the Act of July 7, 1970, Pub. L. 91-310). We are required to ascertain whether or not public entities that receive Reclamation irrigation water meet such revenue criteria regardless of how much land the public entities hold (directly or indirectly own or lease) [43 CFR 426.10(a)]. In order to minimize the burden on public entities, standard RRA forms are submitted by a public entity only when the public entity holds more than 40 acres subject to the acreage limitation provisions westwide, which makes it difficult to apply the revenue criteria as required to those public entities that hold less than 40 acres. When we become aware of such public entities, we may extend to those public entities the option to complete and submit for our review the Public Entity Information Sheet (Form 7-2565), which allows us to establish compliance with Federal reclamation law for those public entities that hold 40 acres or less and thus do not submit a standard RRA form because they are below the RRA forms submittal threshold. In addition, for those public entities that do not meet the exemption criteria, we must determine the proper rate to charge for Reclamation irrigation water deliveries. The Public Entity Information Sheet is disbursed at our discretion. The proposed revisions to the Public Entity Information Sheet will be effective starting in the 2008 water year and are designed to facilitate ease of completion. *Acreage limitation provisions applicable to religious or charitable organizations (new form)* —Some religious or charitable organizations that receive Reclamation irrigation water may believe that they are under the RRA forms submittal threshold and, consequently, may not submit the appropriate RRA form(s). However, some of these organizations may in fact have a different RRA forms submittal threshold than what they believe it to be depending on whether these organizations meet all of the required criteria for full special application of the acreage limitations provisions to religious or charitable organizations [43 CFR 426.9(b)]. In addition, some organizations that
(1)do not meet the criteria to be treated as a religious or charitable organization under the acreage limitation provisions, and
(2)are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms due to the size of their landholdings (directly and indirectly owned and leased land), may in fact be receiving Reclamation irrigation water for which the full-cost rate must be paid because the start of Reclamation irrigation water deliveries occurred after October 1, 1981 [43 CFR 426.6(b)(2)]. A new “Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet” (Form 7-2578) has been developed for approval as part of this information collection, and will allow us to establish certain religious or charitable organizations' compliance with Federal reclamation law. Reclamation anticipates a very minimal increase in burden hours resulting from the addition of this form because of the very limited type of landholders that can use this form. The Religious or Charitable Organization Identification Sheet is disbursed at our discretion and will be effective starting in the 2008 water year. Changes to the Forms and the Instructions to Those Forms Minor editorial changes were made to the currently approved forms and the instructions to those forms prior to the 60-day comment period initiated by the notice published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9964, Mar. 6, 2007). Those changes were designed to assist the respondents by increasing their understanding of the forms, clarifying the instructions for use when completing the forms, and clarifying the information that is required to be submitted with the forms. We received no public comments from the 60-day public comment period. The proposed revisions to the forms will be included starting in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Generally, these forms will be submitted once per identified entity, trust, public entity, or religious or charitable organization. Each year, we expect new responses in accordance with the following numbers. *Respondents:* Entity landholders, trusts, public entities, and religious or charitable organizations identified by Reclamation that are subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 500. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.0. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 500. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 72 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form name Estimated Number of respondents Frequency of response Total annual responses Burden estimate per form (in minutes) Total burden hours Limited Recipient Identification Sheet 175 1.00 175 5 15 Trust Information Sheet 150 1.00 150 5 13 Public Entity Information Sheet 100 1.00 100 15 25 Religious or Charitable Identification Sheet 75 1.00 75 15 19 Total 500 1.00 500 72 Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b)the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on the RRA forms. A **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9964, Mar. 6, 2007). No public comments were received. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comment should be submitted to OMB within 30 days in order to assure maximum consideration. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-12716 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection; Activities Under OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0006). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) has forwarded the following Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval: Certification Summary Form, Reporting Summary Form for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428, OMB Control Number: 1006-0006. This information collection is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden. DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments must be received on or before August 31, 2007 to assure maximum consideration. ADDRESSES: You may send written comments to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, via facsimile to
(202)395-6566 or e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* . A copy of your comments should also be directed to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, PO Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:
(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Certification Summary Form, Reporting Summary Form for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428. *Abstract:* These forms are to be used by district offices to summarize individual landholder (direct or indirect landowner or lessee) and farm operator certification and reporting forms as required by the RRA, 43 CFR part 426, and 43 CFR part 428. This information allows us to establish water user compliance with Federal reclamation law. Changes to the RRA Forms and the Instructions to Those Forms Minor editorial changes were made to the currently approved RRA forms and the instructions to those forms prior to the 60-day comment period initiated by the notice published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9966, Mar. 6, 2007). Those changes were designed to assist the respondents by increasing their understanding of the forms, clarifying the instructions for use when completing the forms, and clarifying the information that is required to be submitted to the districts with the forms. We received no public comments from the 60-day public comment period. The proposed revisions to the RRA forms will be included starting in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondents:* Contracting entities that are subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 225. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.25. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 281. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 11,240 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form No. Estimated No. of respondents Frequency of response Total Annual responses Burden hours per response Total burden hours 7-21SUMM-C and tabulation sheets 188 1.25 235 40 9,400 7-21SUMM-R and tabulation sheets 37 1.25 46 40 1,840 Total 225 1.25 281 11,240 Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b)the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on the RRA forms. A **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9966, Mar. 6, 2007). No public comments were received. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comment should be submitted to OMB within 30 days in order to assure maximum consideration. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-12717 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Agency Information Collection; Activities Under OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB No. 1006-0005). SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces the Bureau of Reclamation (we, our, or us) has forwarded the following Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval: Individual Landholder's and Farm Operator's Certification and Reporting Forms for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428, OMB Control Number: 1006-0005. This ICR is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden. DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments must be received on or before August 1, 2007 to assure maximum consideration. ADDRESSES: You may send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, via facsimile to
(202)395-6566 or e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* . A copy of your comments should also be directed to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: 84-53000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie McPhee at:
(303)445-2897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Individual Landholder's and Farm Operator's Certification and Reporting Forms for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428. *Abstract:* This information collection requires certain landholders (direct or indirect landowners or lessees) and farm operators to complete forms demonstrating their compliance with the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. These forms are submitted to districts who use the information to establish each landholder's status with respect to landownership limitations, full-cost pricing thresholds, lease requirements, and other provisions of Federal reclamation law. In addition, forms are submitted by certain farm operators to provide information concerning the services they provide and the nature of their farm operating arrangements. All landholders whose entire westwide landholdings total 40 acres or less are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms. Landholders who are “qualified recipients” have RRA forms submittal thresholds of 80 acres or 240 acres depending on the district's RRA forms submittal threshold category where the land is held. Only farm operators who provide multiple services to more than 960 acres held in trusts or by legal entities are required to submit forms. Changes to the RRA Forms and the Instructions to Those Forms Minor editorial changes were made to the currently approved RRA forms and the instructions to those forms prior to the 60-day comment period initiated by the notice published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9965, Mar. 6, 2007). Those changes were designed to assist the respondents by increasing their understanding of the forms, clarifying the instructions for use when completing the forms, and clarifying the information that is required to be submitted to the districts with the forms. We received no public comments from the 60-day public comment period. The proposed revisions to the RRA forms will be included starting in the 2008 water year. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondents:* Landholders and farm operators of certain lands in our projects, whose landholdings exceed specified RRA forms submittal thresholds. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 17,358. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1.02. *Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses:* 17,706. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 13,085 hours. *Estimate of Burden for Each Form:* Form No. Estimated No. of respondents Frequency of response Total annual responses Burden estimate per form (in minutes) Total burden hours Form 7-2180 4,686 1.02 4,780 60 4,780 Form 7-2180EZ 483 1.02 493 45 370 Form 7-2181 1,369 1.02 1,396 78 1,815 Form 7-2184 36 1.02 37 45 28 Form 7-2190 1,841 1.02 1,878 60 1,878 Form 7-2190EZ 109 1.02 111 45 83 Form 7-2191 879 1.02 897 78 1,166 Form 7-2194 4 1.02 4 45 3 Form 7-21PE 166 1.02 169 75 211 Form 7-21PE-IND 5 1.02 5 12 1 Form 7-21TRUST 1,002 1.02 1,022 60 1,022 Form 7-21FARMOP 196 1.02 200 78 260 Form 7-21VERIFY 6,175 1.02 6,299 12 1,260 Form 7-21FC 243 1.02 248 30 124 Form 7-21XS 164 1.02 167 30 84 Form 7-21XSINAQ 0 0 0 0 0 Form 7-21CONT-O 0 0 0 0 0 Form 7-21CONT-L 0 0 0 0 0 Form 7-21CONT-I 0 0 0 0 0 Form 7-21INFO 0 0 0 0 0 Total 17,358 1.02 17,706 13,085 Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b)the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on the RRA forms. A **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9965, Mar. 6, 2007). No public comments were received. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comment should be submitted to OMB within 30 days in order to assure maximum consideration. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Office. [FR Doc. E7-12718 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, Yuba County, CA AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/(EIR/EIS). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Yuba County Water Agency
(YCWA)have made available for public review and comment the Draft EIR/EIS for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord (Yuba Accord). Two public hearings will be held to provide interested individuals and organizations with an opportunity to comment verbally and in writing on the Draft EIR/EIS. The purpose of the Yuba Accord is to resolve instream flow issues associated with operation of the Yuba River Development Project (Yuba Project) in a way that protects and enhances lower Yuba River fisheries and local water-supply reliability. At the same time, it would provide revenues for local flood control and water supply projects, water for the CALFED Program to use for protection and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) fisheries, and improvements in statewide water supply management, including supplemental water for the Central Valley Project
(CVP)and the State Water Project (SWP). DATES: Two public hearings will be held on August 1, 2007 from 2 to 3 p.m. and from 6 to 7 p.m. in Marysville, California. Submit written comments on the Draft EIR/EIS on or before August 24, 2007 at the address provided below. ADDRESSES: The hearings will be at the Yuba County Water Agency, 1220 F Street, Marysville, CA 95901. Send written comments to Ms. Dianne Simodynes, HDR|Surface Water Resources, Inc., 1610 Arden Way, Suite 175, Sacramento, CA 95815-4041. Send requests for a compact disk or a bound copy of the Draft EIR/EIS to Dianne Simodynes, telephone:
(916)569-1096. The Yuba Accord Draft EIR/EIS will also be available on the web at: *http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=2549* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Rust, Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Division of Resources Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, at
(916)978-5516, or by e-mail at *trust@mp.usbr.gov;* or Mr. Curt Aikens, YCWA, at 1220 F Street, Marysville, CA 95901, at
(530)741-6278, or by e-mail at *caikens@ycwa.com.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Yuba Accord represents an effort on the part of the Yuba River stakeholders to find a solution to the challenges of competing interests by providing water for fisheries, developing new tools to ensure local reliable water supply, crafting a revenue stream to pay for the Yuba Accord, and providing additional water for out-of-county environmental and consumptive uses. These various objectives would be met through implementation of the Yuba Accord, which includes the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Lower Yuba River Fisheries Agreement” (Fisheries Agreement), the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Conjunctive Use Agreements” (Conjunctive Use Agreements), and the “Principles of Agreement for Proposed Long-term Transfer Agreement” (Water Purchase Agreement). *The Yuba Accord agreements are:* • A Fisheries Agreement among YCWA, California Department of Fish and Game, and the collective non-governmental organizations, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service supporting the agreement. Under the Yuba Accord Fisheries Agreement, YCWA would revise the operation of the Yuba Project to provide higher flows in the lower Yuba River to protect and enhance fisheries and to increase downstream water supplies. • Conjunctive Use Agreements between YCWA and water districts within Yuba County for the implementation of a comprehensive program of conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater supplies and actions to improve water use efficiencies. • A Water Purchase Agreement among YCWA, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and Reclamation. Under this agreement, Reclamation and DWR would purchase water for the CALFED Environmental Water Account and for the CVP and SWP project uses. All three of these agreements need to be in place for the Yuba Accord to be implemented. The Draft EIR/EIS analyzes the impacts of implementing the Yuba Accord on surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water supply, hydropower, flood control, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, special-status species, recreation, visual, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets, air quality, land use, socioeconomic, growth inducement, and environmental justice resources and conditions. Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS include the No Action Alternative, No Project Alternative, Proposed Project/Action Alternative (Yuba Accord Alternative), and Modified Flow Alternative. In addition, the Draft EIR/EIS addresses other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in conjunction with the implementation of the Yuba Accord, thus analyzing cumulative impacts. Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS are available for public review at the following locations: • Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. • Yuba County Water Agency, 1220 F Street, Marysville, CA 95901. • Department of Water Resources, Division of Environmental Services, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. • Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. • Yuba County Library, 303 2nd Street, Marysville, CA 95901. If special assistance is required at the public hearings, please contact Dianne Simodynes (e-mail: *Dianne.Simodynes@hdrinc.com* ). Please notify Ms. Simodynes as far in advance of the hearings as possible to enable Reclamation to secure the needed services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be notified. Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: June 18, 2007. John F. Davis, Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E7-12728 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-744 (Second Review)] Brake Rotors From China AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of a five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from China. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 21, 2007. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2007. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: *Effective Date:* July 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background.* —On April 17, 1997, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of brake rotors from China (62 FR 18740). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective August 14, 2002, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of brake rotors from China (67 FR 52933). The Commission is now conducting a second review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. *Definitions.* —The following definitions apply to this review:
(1)Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.
(2)The Subject Country in this review is China.
(3)The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination and its expedited five-year review determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all aftermarket brake rotors, coextensive with Commerce's scope.
(4)The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination and its expedited five-year review determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all producers of aftermarket brake rotors. In its original determination, the Commission also determined that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude AlliedSignal from the domestic aftermarket rotor industry as a related party; however, in its expedited five-year review determination, the Commission did not find that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude any producer from the domestic industry.
(5)An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. *Participation in the review and public service list.* —Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission is seeking guidance as to whether a second transition five-year review is the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee's participation was “personal and substantial.” However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088. 1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 07-5-172, expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. *Limited disclosure of business proprietary information
(BPI)under an administrative protective order
(APO)and APO service list.* —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. *Certification.* —Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. *Written submissions.* —Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is August 21, 2007. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is September 14, 2007. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response). *Inability to provide requested information.* —Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review. *Information To Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution:* As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1)The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.
(2)A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.
(3)A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4)A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.
(5)A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).
(6)A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2001.
(7)If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2006 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.
(a)Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;
(b)Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product;
(c)the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and
(d)the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).
(8)If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2006 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.
(a)The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;
(b)the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and
(c)the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.
(9)If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2006 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.
(a)Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production;
(b)Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country; and
(c)the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.
(10)Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2001, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.
(11)(OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 25, 2007. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-12668 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-581] In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof: Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting the Joint Motion of Complainant Hewlett-Packard Company and Respondent All Media Outlet Corporation To Terminate the Investigation With Respect to That Respondent; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) granting the joint motion of complainant Hewlett-Packard Company (“H-P”) and respondent All Media Outlet Corporation d/b/a Inkandbeyond.com (“All Media”) to terminate the investigation with respect to All Media, and terminating the investigation in its entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on September 6, 2006, based on a complaint filed by H-P of California, subsequently amended, alleging violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 7-9, 22, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,387; claims 1-9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,793,329; claims 8-10, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,074,042; claims 1-6 and 19-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,588,880; claims 1-7 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,364,472; claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687; and claims 1-3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301. The complaint named six respondents: Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd. of China, Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd. of California, Aurora Eshop, Inc. d/b/a butterflyinkjet.com of California, Iowaink, LLC d/b/a iowaink.com of Iowa, L2 Commerce Inc. d/b/a Printmicro.com of California, and All Media Outlet Corp. d/b/a Inkandbeyond.com of California. On March 19, 2007, H-P and All Media jointly moved to terminate the investigation with respect to All Media, based on a settlement agreement. The Commission investigative attorney supported the motion. On June 6, 2007, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 9) granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation with regard to All Media. The ALJ found that the joint motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21 (19 CFR 210.21). The ALJ also concluded that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)), there is no evidence that termination of this investigation will prejudice the public interest. In addition, the ALJ noted that the termination of litigation under these circumstances as an alternative method of dispute resolution is generally in the public interest. Accordingly, the ALJ terminated the investigation as to All Media. In addition, the ALJ terminated the investigation in its entirety. No petitions for review of this ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 27, 2007. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-12752 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-07-012] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade Commission. Time and Date: July 10, 2007 at 11 a.m. Place: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202)205-2000. Status: Open to the public. Matters to be Considered: 1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review) (Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before July 25, 2007.) 5. Outstanding action jackets: none. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 26, 2007. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. E7-12639 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 25, 2007 The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection requests
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / email: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 92-6: Sale of Individual Life Insurance or Annuity Contracts By a Plan. *OMB Number:* 1210-0063. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 9,780. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 9,780. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1,956. *Estimated Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Estimated Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $4,499. *Description:* Section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) authorize the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Treasury to grant a conditional or unconditional exemption of any fiduciary, disqualified person or class of fiduciaries, or orders of disqualified persons or transactions, from all or part of the restrictions imposed by sections 406 and 407(a) of ERISA and from the taxes imposed by sections 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code. Under section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (Reorganization Plan No. 4), the Secretary of Labor was given the authority to grant such exemptions. Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 92-6 (PTE 92-6) was granted on February 5, 1992 and became effective on October 22, 1986. PTE 92-6 amends and replaces Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 77-8 (PTE 77-8), and exempts from the prohibited transaction restrictions the sale of individual life insurance or annuity contracts held by an employee benefit plan to:
(1)Plan participants insured under such contracts;
(2)relatives of such participants who are the beneficiaries under the contract,
(3)employers, any of whose employees are covered by the plan;
(4)other employee benefit plans that have a party in interest relationship;
(5)owner-employees (as defined in section 401(c)(3) of the Code),
(6)shareholder-employees (as defined in section 1379 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect on the day before the enactment of the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982), or
(7)trusts established by plan participants insured under such contracts or relatives of such participants who are the beneficiaries under the contract, for the cash surrender value of the contracts, provided certain conditions set forth in the class exemption are met. In order to ensure that the class exemption is not abused, that the rights of the participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that the exemption's conditions are being complied with, the Department often requires minimal information collection pertaining to the affected transactions. The Department has included in the class exemption a basic disclosure requirement. Pension plans are required to inform the insured participant of a proposed sale of a life insurance or annuity policy to the employer, a relative, another plan, an owner-employee, or a shareholder-employee. If the participant elects not to purchase the contract, the relative, the employer, another plan, the owner-employees, or the shareholder-employees may purchase the contract from the plan upon the receipt by the plan of written consent of the participant. The disclosure requirement of the class exemption does not apply if the contract is sold to the plan participant. The disclosure requirement incorporated within this class exemption is intended to protect the rights of plan participants and beneficiaries by putting them on notice of the plan's intention to sell insurance or annuity contracts under which they are insured, and by giving them the right of first refusal to purchase such contracts. Without this disclosure requirement, the Department, which may only grant an exemption if it can find that participants and beneficiaries are protected, would be unable to effectively enforce the terms of the class exemption and ensure user compliance. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 91-55: Transactions Between Individual Retirement Accounts and Authorized Purchasers of American Eagle Coins. *OMB Number:* 1210-0079. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 663,431. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 11,063. *Estimated Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Estimated Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $152,589. *Description:* Section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) authorize the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Treasury to grant a conditional or unconditional exemption of any fiduciary, disqualified person or class of fiduciaries, or orders of disqualified persons or transactions, from all or part of the restrictions imposed by sections 406 and 407(a) of ERISA and from the taxes imposed by sections 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code. Under section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (Reorganization Plan No. 4), the Secretary of Labor was given the authority to grant such exemptions. Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 91-55 (PTE 91-55) was granted on September 23, 1991, and provides an exemption from certain of ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions (and the taxes imposed by section 4975 of the Code) for purchases and sales by “certain individual retirement accounts,” as defined in Code section 408 (“IRAs”) of American Eagle bullion coins (“Coins”) in principal transactions from or to broker-dealers in Coins (i.e., banks and other approved persons referenced in Code sections 408(a)(2) and 408(h)) which are “authorized purchasers” of Coins in bulk quantities from the United States Mint (“Mint”) which are also “disqualified persons,” within the meaning of Code section 4975(e)(2) with respect to IRAs. Under the class exemption, relief is provided only for purchases and sales of Coins between such disqualified persons and IRAs with respect to which the IRA depositor either self-directs the IRA investments or delegates investment discretion over assets in the IRA to a third person who is independent of and unrelated to the disqualified person or other affiliate thereof. The class exemption also describes the circumstances under which the interest-free extension of credit in connection with such sales and purchases is permitted. In the absence of an exemption, such purchases and sales and extensions of credit would be impermissible under ERISA. Section 406 of ERISA (and section 4975(c)(1) of the Code) prohibits various transactions between a plan and certain related parties. Those parties in interest described in section 3(14) of ERISA and disqualified persons described in section 4975(e)(2) of the Code, such as plan fiduciaries, sponsoring employers, unions, service providers and affiliates, may not engage in a transaction described in section 406 of ERISA and section 4975(c) of the Code with a plan without an exemption. Code section 4975(e)(1) states that an IRA described in section 408(a) of the Code is included within the definition of the term “plan” for purposes of Code section 4975. Specifically, these sections prohibit sales, leases, loans, or the provision of services between a party in interest and a plan, as well as a use of plan assets by or for the benefit of, or a transfer of plan assets to, a party in interest or a disqualified person, unless a statutory or administrative exemption applies to the transaction. The Department of Labor has authority under Reorganization Plan No. 4, pursuant to section 408 of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, to grant either individual or class exemptions. In order to grant a class exemption under section 408 and section 4975(c)(2), the Department must determine that the exemption is:
(1)Administratively feasible,
(2)In the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and
(3)Protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of such plan. In order to ensure that the class exemption is not abused, that the rights of the participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that the exemption's conditions are being complied with, the Department often requires minimal information collection pertaining to the affected transactions. Because the value of Coins can fluctuate frequently, the Department believes that the maintenance of contemporaneous records by the purchaser is essential to enable those persons directing the investments of the IRAs, as well as the Department and the IRS, to monitor compliance with the conditions of the class exemption. The recordkeeping requirement facilitates the Department's ability to make findings under section 408 of ERISA and section 4975(c) of the Code. The confirmation and disclosure requirements enable participants and beneficiaries investing in IRAs better to monitor their investments in Coins. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 85-68 to Permit Employee Benefit Plans to Invest in Customer Notes of Employers. *OMB Number:* 1210-0094. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 69. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 325. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1. *Estimated Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Estimated Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $0. *Description:* Section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) authorize the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Treasury to grant a conditional or unconditional exemption of any fiduciary, disqualified person or class of fiduciaries, or orders of disqualified persons or transactions, from all or part of the restrictions imposed by sections 406 and 407(a) of ERISA and from the taxes imposed by sections 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code. Under section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (Reorganization Plan No. 4), the Secretary of Labor was given the authority to grant such exemptions. This class exemption which was granted on March 28, 1985 and replaced prohibited Transaction Exemption 79-9, describes the conditions under which a plan is permitted to acquire customer notes accepted by an employer of employees covered by the plan in the ordinary course of the employer's business activity and thus be exempt from the prohibited transaction restrictions. The class exemption covers sales as well as contributions of customer notes by an employer to its plan. In order to ensure that the class exemption is not abused, that the rights of the participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that the exemption's conditions are being complied with, the Department of Labor (the Department) often requires minimal information collection pertaining to the affected transactions. The Department has included in the class exemption a recordkeeping provision, whereby plans are required to maintain for six years from the date of the transaction the records necessary to enable interested parties including the Department to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have been met. The class exemption also requires that those records be made available to certain persons on request. Without this recordkeeping requirement, the Department would be unable to effectively enforce the terms of the exemption and ensure user compliance. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Notice Requirements of the Health Care Continuation Coverage Provisions. *OMB Number:* 1210-0123. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 593,000. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 15,237,957. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 0. *Estimated Total Annualized Capital/startup costs:* $0. *Estimated Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $18,387,739. *Description:* The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1984 (COBRA) provides that under certain circumstances participants and beneficiaries of group health plans that satisfy the definition of “qualified beneficiaries” under COBRA may elect to continue group health coverage temporarily following events known as “qualifying events” that would otherwise result in loss of coverage. COBRA provides that the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) has the authority under section 608 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to carry out the provisions of Part 6 of title I of ERISA. The Conference Report that accompanied COBRA authorized the Secretary to issue regulations implementing the notice and disclosure requirements of COBRA. The Department has implemented the Notice Requirements of Section 606 of ERISA (regulations) because the provision of timely and adequate notifications regarding COBRA rights and responsibilities is critical to a qualified beneficiary's ability to obtain health continuation coverage. In addition, in the Department's view, regulatory guidance was necessary to establish clearer standards for administering and processing COBRA notices. The provision of timely and adequate notifications is critical for the effective exercise of COBRA rights. As such, plan administrators, group health plan insurers, and other service providers to the healthcare industry have indicated to the Department that additional guidance on notification and disclosure under COBRA would be welcome. Failure on the part of a plan administrator to meet notice requirements might result in a qualified beneficiary's losing out on continuation coverage, assessment of fines on a plan administrator, or other adverse consequences. Under the regulatory guidelines, plan administrators are required to distribute notices as follows: A general notice to be distributed to all participants in group health plans subject to COBRA; an employer notice that must be completed by the employer upon the occurrence of a qualifying event; a notice and election form to be sent to a participant upon the occurrence of a qualifying event that might cause the participant to lose group health coverage; an employee notice that may be completed by a qualified beneficiary upon the occurrence of certain qualifying events such as divorce or disability; and, two other notices, one of early termination and the other a notice of unavailability. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12704 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 22, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-Mail: *Mills.Ira@dol.gov* , or by accessing *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. *OMB Number:* 1220-0045. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Reporting. *Number of Respondents:* Form Total respondents Frequency Total responses Average time per response Estimated total burden BLS 9300 230,000 Annually 230,000 .4 hour 91,666 hours Pre-notification Package 175,000 out of 230,000 Annually 175,000 out of 230,000 1.35 hours 235,833 hours TOTALS 230,000 230,000 327,499 hours *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* 0. *Total Annual Costs:* 0 (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services). *Description:* The goal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, as stated in Section 2(b), is to assure, as far as possible, every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions. The BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses provides the Nation's primary indicator of the progress towards achieving this goal. The survey measures the overall rate of occurrence of work injuries and illnesses by industry. The industry classifications for which data are produced reflect the incorporation of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes beginning with reference year 2003. Until now, the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses has been restricted to producing national estimates for the private sector only. Consequently, there have been no national estimates of workplace injuries and illnesses sustained by State and Local government workers, including those in such relatively high hazard and high profile occupations as police, firefighters, paramedics and other public health workers. To address this data gap, beginning with survey year 2008, the BLS will collect data from State and Local government agencies in all States to support both State and national estimates. The BLS will collect this data within the current budget. The BLS regards the collection of these data as a significant expansion in its overall coverage of the American workplace. BLS will send a letter explaining that the survey is voluntary for State and Local government agencies in States that do not require this collection of data. The number of extra sample units needed for State and Local government data is approximately 7,000. A Non-Substantive change request will be made for this increase for survey year 2008. For the more serious injuries and illnesses, those with days away from work, the survey provides detailed information on the injured/ill worker (age, sex, race, industry, occupation, and length of service), the time in shift, and the circumstances of the injuries and illnesses classified by standardized codes (nature of the injury/illness, part of body affected, primary and secondary sources of the injury/illness, and the event or exposure that produced the injury/illness). Race data categories reflect the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)recommended categories for non-self-reported classification. Optional information on the general job category is used to improve coding for non-descriptive job titles, such as “Customer Service Representative.” A check-off for before/during/after work shift was included to identify the events that occurred before or after the work shift. In the two decades prior to the OSHA recordkeeping changes in 2002, incidence rates for cases with days away from work decreased significantly while incidence rates for cases with only restricted work activity increased significantly. Since the BLS presently collects case and demographic data only for cases with days away from work, data are not obtained about a growing class of injury and illness cases. Beginning with the 2008 survey year, BLS will test collection of case and demographic data for injury and illness cases that require only days of job transfer or restriction. If the test(s) prove successful, BLS will implement this for as many States as the budget allows beginning with survey year 2009. BLS regards the collection of these cases with only job transfer or restriction as significant in its coverage of the American workforce. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer/Team Leader. [FR Doc. E7-12710 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 27, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection requests
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Operations Under Water. *OMB Number:* 1219-0020. *Type of Response:* Reporting. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit (Mines). *Number of Respondents:* 30. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 30. *Average Response Time:* 5 hours. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 150. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $450. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $0. *Description:* The information collection requirements contained in 30 CFR 75.1702 and 75.1702-1 help to ensure that miners are protected from the unnecessary hazards associated with the open flame of a cigarette lighter or match. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-12729 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-09; Exemption Application No. D-11408] Grant of Individual Exemption Involving the Derose Dental Offices Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, Located in Racine, WI AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Grant of individual exemption. SUMMARY: This document contains an exemption issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). A notice was published in the **Federal Register** of the pendency before the Department of a proposal to grant such exemption. The notice set forth a summary of facts and representations contained in the application for exemption and referred interested persons to the application for a complete statement of the facts and representations. The application has been available for public inspection at the Department in Washington, DC. The notice also invited interested persons to submit comments on the requested exemption to the Department. In addition the notice stated that any interested person might submit a written request that a public hearing be held (where appropriate). The applicant has represented that it has complied with the requirements of the notification to interested persons. No requests for a hearing were received by the Department. Public comments were received by the Department as described in the granted exemption. The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor. Statutory Findings In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
(a)The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b)The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c)The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan. The DeRose Dental Offices, Inc., S.C. Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) Located in Racine, Wisconsin [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-09; Exemption Application No. D-11408] Exemption The restrictions of section 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the December 29, 2006 sale by the Plan of 2,174 shares of stock (the Stock) in Wisconsin Bancshares, Inc. each to Francesca DeRose and Nicolet DeRose, parties in interest with respect to the Plan, provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a)The sales of the Stock were one-time transactions for cash;
(b)The Plan paid no commissions or other fees in connection with the sales;
(c)The terms of the transactions were at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in similar transactions with an unrelated party; and
(d)The sales price of the Stock was determined by a qualified, independent appraiser. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on March 22, 2007 at 72 FR 13517. DATES: *Effective Date:* This exemption is effective as of December 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone
(202)693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.) General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2)This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(3)The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June, 2007. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption, Determinations Employee Benefits, Security Administration, Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-12674 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-08; Exemption Application No. D-11345] Grant of Individual Exemption To Amend and Replace Prohibited Transaction Exemption
(PTE)2000-34, Involving the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (FML), Located in Radnor, PA AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. ACTION: Grant of individual exemption to amend and replace PTE 2000-34. This document contains a final exemption before the Department of Labor (the Department) that amends and replaces PTE 2000-34 (65 FR 41732, July 6, 2000), an exemption granted to FML. PTE 2000-34, relates to
(1)the receipt of certain stock (Plan Stock) issued by Fidelity Insurance Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of FML, or
(2)the receipt of plan credits by or on behalf of a FML mutual member (the Mutual Member), which is an employee benefit plan (the Plan), other than the Employee Pension Plan of Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company, in exchange for such Mutual Member's membership interest in FML, in accordance with the terms of a plan of rehabilitation (the Third Amended Plan), approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (the Court) and supervised by both the Court and a rehabilitator appointed by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner. These transactions are described in a notice of proposed exemption (65 FR 18359, April 7, 2000), which underlies PTE 2000-34. The final exemption incorporates by reference many of the conditions contained in PTE 2000-34. The exemption also revises and updates certain facts and representations set forth in PTE 2000-34 to include the terms of the Fourth Amended Plan of Rehabilitation (the Fourth Amended Plan) which supersedes the Third Amended Plan upon which PTE 2000-34 is based. DATES: *Effective Date:* This exemption is effective as of the date the grant notice is published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ekaterina A. Uzlyan, Office of Exemptions Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone
(202)693-8552. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 22, 2007, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 13519. The document contained a notice of proposed individual exemption from the prohibited transaction restrictions of section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and from the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(D)of the Code. The proposed exemption has been requested in an application filed on behalf of FML pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978) transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Accordingly, this exemption is being issued solely by the Department. The proposed exemption gave interested persons an opportunity to comment and to request a hearing. In this regard, all interested persons were invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemption on or before April 24, 2007. All comments were made part of the record. During the comment period, the Department received 2 written comments that were submitted by electronic mail. One comment was submitted by FML and it is intended to clarify that FML is located in “Radnor” rather than in “Pittsburgh,” Pennsylvania. In response to the comment, the Department has modified the text in the heading at the beginning of the grant notice to read “Radnor, Pennsylvania” in order to denote FML's correct location. The second comment was submitted by the trustee of a Plan that is a Mutual Member of FML. Specifically, the commenter wished to know whether
(1)FML is nearing dissolution and its assets are close to depletion;
(2)FML has any knowledge of a prospective purchaser which has expressed an interest in protecting the current policyholders if the Fourth Amended Plan is granted; and
(3)the “numbers” cited in the proposed exemption are factual. The commenter also sought clarification on the percentage of likelihood that the Fourth Amended Plan would be implemented and whether the commenter's own Plan would be permitted to acquire “mutual fund stock” of an insurance company. In response to this comment, FML explains that the sale of its assets (or possibly its conversion to a stock company and the sale of its stock) is expected to occur in the near future. FML also states that its assets are not nearing depletion. In addition, FML represents that a third party has submitted a bid to purchase its assets and that the protections of its policyholders are the protections that are built into the Fourth Amended Plan, which must be implemented and approved by the Court. Moreover, FML indicates that the numbers cited in the proposal are actual numbers. With respect to the implementation of the Fourth Amended Plan, FML has declined to specify a percentage, but states that it believes this plan “is highly likely to be implemented.” Finally, in response to the commenter's question about allowing the commenter's own Plan to acquire mutual fund shares, FML states it does not understand the comment and that the requested exemption has nothing to do with mutual funds. For further information regarding the comments or other matters discussed herein, interested persons are encouraged to obtain copies of the exemption application file (Exemption Application No. D-11345) the Department is maintaining in this case. The complete application file, as well as all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is made available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, including the written comments received, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which require, among other things, a fiduciary to discharge his or her duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act;
(2)The exemption does not extend to transactions prohibited under section 406(b) of the Act and section 4975(c)(1)(E)-(F) of the Code;
(3)In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act, the Department makes the following determinations:
(a)The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b)The exemption is in the interest of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c)The exemption is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plans.
(4)The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction. Accordingly, the following exemption is granted under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Section I. Covered Transactions The restrictions of section 406(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(D)of the Code, shall not apply to
(1)the receipt of certain stock (the Investor Stock) issued by the corporation (the Stock Purchaser) which acquires Post-Conversion Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (Post-Conversion FML) by stock purchase or by merger,
(2)the receipt of plan credits (the Plan Credits), or
(3)the receipt of cash, by or on behalf of a mutual member (the Mutual Member) of FML which is an employee benefit plan (a Plan), in exchange for such Mutual Member's membership interest (the Membership Interest) in FML, in accordance with the terms of a plan of rehabilitation of FML (the Fourth Amended Plan) approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (the Court) and supervised by both the Court and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (the Commissioner), who is acting as the rehabilitator of FML (the Rehabilitator). This exemption is subject to the following conditions set forth below in Section II. Section II. General Conditions
(a)The Fourth Amended Plan is approved by the Court, implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under Pennsylvania law and is subject to review and/or supervision by the Commissioner (both in her own capacity and in her capacity as Rehabilitator of FML). The Court determines whether the Fourth Plan—
(1)Properly conserves and equitably administers the assets of FML, in the interests of investors, the public, and others in accordance with the legislatively-stated purpose of protecting the interests of the insured, creditors, and the public; and
(2)Equitably apportions any unavoidable loss through imposed methods for rehabilitating FML. (The Court will retain exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization.)
(b)The Fourth Amended Plan provides for either:
(1)The transfer of FML's assets to an independent purchaser (the Asset Purchaser) in exchange for cash; or
(2)The conversion of FML from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company and either
(A)the transfer of the stock of Post-Conversion FML to the independent Stock Purchaser or
(B)the merger of Post-Conversion FML into the independent Stock Purchaser or an affiliate of the Stock Purchaser.
(c)Each Mutual Member has an opportunity to comment on the Fourth Amended Plan at hearings held by the Court after full written disclosure of the terms of the Plan is given to such Mutual Member by FML.
(d)Participation by all Mutual Members in the Fourth Amended Plan, if approved by the Court, is mandatory, although Mutual Members may disclaim the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits which they would otherwise receive.
(e)The decision by a Mutual Member which is a Plan to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits allocated to such Mutual Member is made by one or more independent fiduciaries of such Plan, and not by FML or any affiliate of FML. Consequently, neither FML nor any of its affiliates will exercise discretion nor render “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) with respect to an independent Plan fiduciary's decision to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits.
(f)Twenty percent (20%) of the net assets which are available for distribution to the Mutual Members is allocated among the Mutual Members based upon voting rights, and eighty percent (80%) of such net assets is allocated among the Mutual Members on the basis of the contribution of the Mutual Members' respective insurance or annuity contracts (the Contracts) to the surplus of FML. The contribution to FML's surplus is the actuarial calculation of both the historical and expected future profit contribution of the Contracts that have contributed to the surplus (i.e., the net earnings) of FML. The actuarial formulas are approved by the Court and the Commissioner.
(g)The amount and value of the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits received by a Mutual Member reflect the aggregate consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser or Asset Purchaser, which is independent of FML.
(h)All Mutual Members that are Plans participate in the transactions on the same basis as all other Mutual Members that are not Plans, except that Mutual Members which hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts receive Plan Credits in exchange for their membership interests, rather than cash and/or Investor Stock.
(i)No Mutual Member pays any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits.
(j)Mutual Members are not restricted from selling or otherwise transferring any Investor Stock which they receive. If Investor Stock comprises part of the consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser, the Stock Purchaser is required to establish a commission-free purchase or sales program which will allow Mutual Members who receive a small number of shares of Investor Stock to “round up” such shares or sell such shares free of sales commissions.
(k)The Fourth Amended Plan does not adversely affect the rights of a contractholder of the company (the Contractholder) which is a Mutual Member. In this regard,
(1)If Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser, the obligations of FML to a Contractholder are retained by Post-Conversion FML; and
(2)If FML's assets are purchased by the Asset Purchaser, FML's obligations to a Contractholder are discharged and terminated upon their endorsement and assumption by the Asset Purchaser, thereby making the Asset Purchaser liable for the obligations under the Contract. Section III. Definitions For purposes of this exemption:
(a)An “affiliate” of FML, Post-Conversion FML, the Stock Purchaser, or the Asset Purchaser includes—
(1)Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such entity. (For purposes of this paragraph, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.); or
(2)Any officer, director or partner in such person.
(b)The term “Asset Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase FML's assets under an assumption reinsurance agreement.
(c)The term “FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, as they exist before FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.
(d)The term “Investor Stock” means the common stock of the Stock Purchaser that will be allocated to Mutual Members if Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser in exchange for consideration that includes common stock of the Stock Purchaser.
(e)The term “Mutual Member” means a Contractholder whose name appears on FML's records as an owner of an FML Contract on the Record Date of the Fourth Amended Plan.
(f)The term “Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts” means FML insurance contracts which are held in connection with retirement plans or arrangements described in section 403(a) or 408 of the Internal Revenue Code or non-trusteed retirement plans described in Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(g)The term “Plan” means an employee benefit plan.
(h)The term “Plan Credit” means either
(1)additional paid up insurance for a traditional life policy or
(2)credits to the account values for Contracts that are not traditional (such as a flexible premium policy). Under FML's Fourth Amended Plan, Plan Credits are to be allocated to Mutual Members who hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts, in lieu of Investor Stock and/or cash.
(i)The term “Post-Conversion FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, as they exist after FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.
(j)The term “Stock Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase the stock of Post-Conversion FML, or to acquire Post-Conversion FML by merger, under a stock purchase agreement or merger agreement. This exemption is available to FML for as long as the terms and conditions of the exemption are satisfied with respect to each Mutual Member that is a Plan. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant PTE 2000-34, refer to the proposed exemption and the grant notice which are cited above. Signed at Washington, DC, June 26, 2007. Ivan L. Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-12673 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemptions and Application Numbers: D-11272, Wells Fargo & Company; D-11390, BSC Services Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan); and D-11402 & D-11403, Owens Corning Savings Plan and Owens Corning Savings and Security (Collectively the Plans) AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed exemptions. SUMMARY: This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). Written Comments and Hearing Requests All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this **Federal Register** Notice. Comments and requests for a hearing should state:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and
(2)the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing. ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No.__, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to: *Amoffitt.betty@dol.gov* , or by FAX to
(202)219-0204 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Notice to Interested Persons Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the **Federal Register** and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department. The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations. Wells Fargo & Company
(WFC)Located in San Francisco, California [Application No. D-11272] Proposed Exemption The Department of Labor (the Department) is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Section I—Transactions If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406 of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(F)of the Code, shall not apply to the purchase of certain securities (the Securities), as defined, below in Section III(h), by an asset management affiliate of WFC, as “affiliate” is defined, below, in Section III(c), from any person other than such asset management affiliate of WFC or any affiliate thereof, during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate with respect to such Securities, where a broker-dealer affiliated with WFC (the Affiliated Broker-Dealer), as defined, below, in Section III(b), is a manager or member of such syndicate and the asset management affiliate of WFC purchases such Securities, as a fiduciary:
(a)On behalf of an employee benefit plan or employee benefit plans (Client Plan(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(e); or
(b)On behalf of Client Plans, and/or In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(l), which are invested in a pooled fund or in pooled funds (Pooled Fund(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(f); provided that the conditions as set forth, below, in Section II, are satisfied (An affiliated underwriter transaction (AUT)). 1 1 For purposes of this proposed exemption an In-House Plan may engage in AUT's only through investment in a Pooled Fund. Section II—Conditions The proposed exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following requirements: (a)(1) The Securities to be purchased are either—
(i)Part of an issue registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ). If the Securities to be purchased are part of an issue that is exempt from such registration requirement, such Securities:
(A)Are issued or guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States,
(B)Are issued by a bank,
(C)Are exempt from such registration requirement pursuant to a federal statute other than the 1933 Act, or
(D)Are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) (15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety
(90)days immediately preceding the sale of such Securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed thereunder with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)during the preceding twelve
(12)months; or
(ii)Part of an issue that is an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4)). Where the Eligible Rule 144A Offering of the Securities is of equity securities, the offering syndicate shall obtain a legal opinion regarding the adequacy of the disclosure in the offering memorandum;
(2)The Securities to be purchased are purchased prior to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities, except that—
(i)If such Securities are offered for subscription upon exercise of rights, they may be purchased on or before the fourth day preceding the day on which the rights offering terminates; or
(ii)If such Securities are debt securities, they may be purchased at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities and may be purchased on a day subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, provided that the interest rates, as of the date of such purchase, on comparable debt securities offered to the public subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made and prior to the purchase date are less than the interest rate of the debt Securities being purchased; and
(3)The Securities to be purchased are offered pursuant to an underwriting or selling agreement under which the members of the syndicate are committed to purchase all of the Securities being offered, except if—
(i)Such Securities are purchased by others pursuant to a rights offering; or
(ii)Such Securities are offered pursuant to an over-allotment option.
(b)The issuer of the Securities to be purchased pursuant to this proposed exemption must have been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, unless the Securities to be purchased—
(1)Are non-convertible debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., FitchRatings, Inc., Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto (collectively, the Rating Organizations); provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or
(2)Are debt securities issued or fully guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States; or
(3)Are debt securities which are fully guaranteed by a person (the Guarantor) that has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, provided that such Guarantor has issued other securities registered under the 1933 Act; or if such Guarantor has issued other securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, such Guarantor has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, and such Guarantor:
(a)Is a bank; or
(b)Is an issuer of securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, pursuant to a Federal statute other than the 1933 Act; or
(c)Is an issuer of securities that are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) (15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety
(90)days immediately preceding the sale of such securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed thereunder with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)during the preceding twelve
(12)months.
(c)The aggregate amount of Securities of an issue purchased, pursuant to this proposed exemption, by the asset management affiliate of WFC with:
(i)the assets of all Client Plans; and
(ii)the assets, calculated on a pro-rata basis, of all Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds managed by the asset management affiliate of WFC; and
(iii)the assets of plans to which the asset management affiliate of WFC renders investment advice within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) does not exceed:
(1)10 percent (10%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are equity securities;
(2)35 percent (35%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or
(3)25 percent (25%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in the fifth or sixth highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the sixth highest rating category; and
(4)The assets of any single Client Plan (and the assets of any Client Plans and any In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds) may not be used to purchase any Securities being offered, if such Securities are debt securities rated lower than the sixth highest rating category by any of the Rating Organizations;
(5)Notwithstanding the percentage of Securities of an issue permitted to be acquired, as set forth in Section II(c)(1), (2), and (3), above, of this proposed exemption, the amount of Securities in any issue (whether equity or debt securities) purchased, pursuant to this proposed exemption, by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan, either individually or through investment, calculated on a pro-rata basis, in a Pooled Fund may not exceed three percent (3%) of the total amount of such Securities being offered in such issue, and;
(6)If purchased in an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the total amount of the Securities being offered for purposes of determining the percentages, described, above, in Section II(c)(1)-(3) and (5), is the total of:
(i)The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities sold by underwriters or members of the selling syndicate to “qualified institutional buyers” (QIBs), as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)); plus
(ii)The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities in any concurrent public offering.
(d)The aggregate amount to be paid by any single Client Plan in purchasing any Securities which are the subject of this proposed exemption, including any amounts paid by any Client Plan or In-House Plan in purchasing such Securities through a Pooled Fund, calculated on a *pro-rata* basis, does not exceed three percent (3%) of the fair market value of the net assets of such Client Plan or In-House Plan, as of the last day of the most recent fiscal quarter of such Client Plan or In-House Plan prior to such transaction.
(e)The covered transactions are not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the asset management affiliate of WFC or an affiliate.
(f)The Affiliated Broker-Dealer does not receive, either directly, indirectly, or through designation, any selling concession, or other compensation or consideration that is based upon the amount of Securities purchased by any single Client Plan, or that is based on the amount of Securities purchased by Client Plans or In-House Plans through Pooled Funds, pursuant to this proposed exemption. In this regard, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer may not receive, either directly or indirectly, any compensation or consideration that is attributable to the fixed designations generated by purchases of the Securities by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan or any Client Plan or In-House Plan in Pooled Funds. (g)(1) The amount the Affiliated Broker-Dealer receives in management, underwriting, or other compensation or consideration is not increased through an agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purpose of compensating the Affiliated Broker-Dealer for foregoing any selling concessions for those Securities sold pursuant to this proposed exemption. Except as described above, nothing in this Section II(g)(1) shall be construed as precluding the Affiliated Broker-Dealer from receiving management fees for serving as manager of the underwriting or selling syndicate, underwriting fees for assuming the responsibilities of an underwriter in the underwriting or selling syndicate, or other compensation or consideration that is not based upon the amount of Securities purchased by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan, or on behalf of any Client Plan or In-House Plan participating in Pooled Funds, pursuant to this proposed exemption; and
(2)The Affiliated Broker-Dealer shall provide to the asset management affiliate of WFC a written certification, signed by an officer of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, stating the amount that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer received in compensation or consideration during the past quarter, in connection with any offerings covered by this proposed exemption, was not adjusted in a manner inconsistent with Section II(e), (f), or
(g)of this proposed exemption.
(h)The covered transactions are performed under a written authorization executed in advance by an independent fiduciary of each single Client Plan (the Independent Fiduciary), as defined, below, in Section III(g).
(i)Prior to the execution by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan of the written authorization described, above, in Section II(h), the following information and materials (which may be provided electronically) must be provided by the asset management affiliate of WFC to such Independent Fiduciary:
(1)A copy of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) and a copy of the final exemption as published in the **Federal Register** ; and
(2)Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that such Independent Fiduciary requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide.
(j)Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan permitting the asset management affiliate of WFC to engage in the covered transactions on behalf of such single Client Plan, the asset management affiliate of WFC will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide. (k)(1) In the case of an existing employee benefit plan investor (or existing In-House Plan investor, as the case may be) in a Pooled Fund, such Pooled Fund may not engage in any covered transactions pursuant to this proposed exemption, unless the asset management affiliate of WFC provides the written information, as described, below, and within the time period described, below, in this Section II(k)(2), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such plan participating in such Pooled Fund (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan participating in such Pooled Fund).
(2)The following information and materials (which may be provided electronically) shall be provided by the asset management affiliate of WFC not less than 45 days prior to such asset management affiliate of WFC engaging in the covered transactions on behalf of a Pooled Fund, pursuant to this proposed exemption:
(i)A notice of the intent of such Pooled Fund to purchase Securities pursuant to this proposed exemption, a copy of this Notice, and a copy of the final exemption, as published in the **Federal Register** ;
(ii)Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide; and
(iii)A termination form expressly providing an election for the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund to terminate such plan's (or In-House Plan's) investment in such Pooled Fund without penalty to such plan (or In-House Plan). Such form shall include instructions specifying how to use the form. Specifically, the instructions will explain that such plan (or such In-House Plan) has an opportunity to withdraw its assets from a Pooled Fund for a period of no more than 30 days after such plan's (or such In-House Plan's) receipt of the initial notice of intent, described, above, in Section II(k)(2)(i), and that the failure of the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or fiduciary of such In-House Plan) to return the termination form to the asset management affiliate of WFC in the case of a plan (or In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund by the specified date shall be deemed to be an approval by such plan (or such In-House Plan) of its participation in the covered transactions as an investor in such Pooled Fund. Further, the instructions will identify WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer and will provide the address of the asset management affiliate of WFC. The instructions will state that this proposed exemption may be unavailable, unless the fiduciary of each plan participating in the covered transactions as an investor in a Pooled Fund is, in fact, independent of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer. The instructions will also state that the fiduciary of each such plan must advise the asset management affiliate of WFC, in writing, if it is not an “Independent Fiduciary,” as that term is defined, below, in Section III(g). For purposes of this Section II(k), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described, above, in Section I of this proposed exemption for each plan be independent of the asset management affiliate of WFC shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan. (l)(1) In the case of each plan (and in the case of each In-House Plan) whose assets are proposed to be invested in a Pooled Fund after such Pooled Fund has satisfied the conditions set forth in this proposed exemption to engage in the covered transactions, the investment by such plan (or by such In-House Plan) in the Pooled Fund is subject to the prior written authorization of an Independent Fiduciary representing such plan (or the prior written authorization by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be), following the receipt by such Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) of the written information described, above, in Section II(k)(2)(i) and (ii).
(2)For purposes of this Section II(l), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described, above, in Section I of this proposed exemption for each plan proposing to invest in a Pooled Fund be independent of WFC and its affiliates shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan.
(m)Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or by a fiduciary of an In-House Plan) to invest in a Pooled Fund that engages in the covered transactions, the asset management affiliate of WFC will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide.
(n)At least once every three months, and not later than 45 days following the period to which such information relates, the asset management affiliate of WFC shall furnish:
(1)In the case of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions, the information described, below, in this Section II(n)(3)-(7), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such single Client Plan.
(2)In the case of each Pooled Fund in which a Client Plan (or in which an In-House Plan) invests, the information described, below, in this Section II(n)(3)-(6) and (8), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan) invested in such Pooled Fund.
(3)A quarterly report (the Quarterly Report) (which may be provided electronically) which discloses all the Securities purchased pursuant to this proposed exemption during the period to which such report relates on behalf of the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which such report relates, and which discloses the terms of each of the transactions described in such report, including:
(i)The type of Securities (including the rating of any Securities which are debt securities) involved in each transaction;
(ii)The price at which the Securities were purchased in each transaction;
(iii)The first day on which any sale was made during the offering of the Securities;
(iv)The size of the issue of the Securities involved in each transaction;
(v)The number of Securities purchased by the asset management affiliate of WFC for the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which the transaction relates;
(vi)The identity of the underwriter from whom the Securities were purchased for each transaction;
(vii)The underwriting spread in each transaction ( *i.e.* , the difference, between the price at which the underwriter purchases the Securities from the issuer and the price at which the Securities are sold to the public);
(viii)The price at which any of the Securities purchased during the period to which such report relates were sold; and
(ix)The market value at the end of the period to which such report relates of the Securities purchased during such period and not sold;
(4)The Quarterly Report contains:
(i)a representation that the asset management affiliate of WFC has received a written certification signed by an officer of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as described, above, in Section II(g)(2), affirming that, as to each AUT covered by this proposed exemption during the past quarter, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer acted in compliance with Section II(e), (f), and
(g)of this proposed exemption, and
(ii)a representation that copies of such certifications will be provided upon request;
(5)A disclosure in the Quarterly Report that states that any other reasonably available information regarding a covered transaction that an Independent Fiduciary (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) requests will be provided, including, but not limited to:
(i)The date on which the Securities were purchased on behalf of the Client Plan (or the In-House Plan) to which the disclosure relates (including Securities purchased by Pooled Funds in which such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan) invests;
(ii)The percentage of the offering purchased on behalf of all Client Plans (and the *pro-rata* percentage purchased on behalf of Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds); and
(iii)The identity of all members of the underwriting syndicate;
(6)The Quarterly Report discloses any instance during the past quarter where the asset management affiliate of WFC was precluded for any period of time from selling Securities purchased under this proposed exemption in that quarter because of its status as an affiliate of an Affiliated Broker-Dealer and the reason for this restriction;
(7)Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions that the authorization to engage in such covered transactions may be terminated, without penalty to such single Client Plan, within five
(5)days after the date that the Independent Fiduciary of such single Client Plan informs the person identified in such notification that the authorization to engage in the covered transactions is terminated; and
(8)Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each In-House Plan) that engages in the covered transactions through a Pooled Fund that the investment in such Pooled Fund may be terminated, without penalty to such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan), within such time as may be necessary to effect the withdrawal in an orderly manner that is equitable to all withdrawing plans and to the non-withdrawing plans, after the date that that the Independent Fiduciary of such Client Plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) informs the person identified in such notification that the investment in such Pooled Fund is terminated.
(o)For purposes of engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million (the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement). For purposes of engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, 2 each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) shall have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be) (the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement). 2 SEC Rule 10f-3(a)(4), 17 C.F.R. § 270.10f-3(a)(4), states that the term “Eligible Rule 144A Offering” means an offering of securities that meets the following conditions:
(i)The securities are offered or sold in transactions exempt from registration under section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77d(d)], rule 144A thereunder [§ 230.144A of this chapter], or rules 501-508 thereunder [§§ 230.501-230-508 of this chapter];
(ii)The securities are sold to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe to include qualified institutional buyers, as defined in § 230.144A(a)(1) of this chapter; and
(iii)The seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe that the securities are eligible for resale to other qualified institutional buyers pursuant to § 230.144A of this chapter. For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met, if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which has total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or In-House Plan, as the case may be), the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be), and the Pooled Fund itself qualifies as a QIB, as determined pursuant to SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(F)). For purposes of the net asset requirements described, above, in this Section II(o), where a group of Client Plans is maintained by a single employer or controlled group of employers, as defined in section 407(d)(7) of the Act, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement (or in the case of an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement) may be met by aggregating the assets of such Client Plans, if the assets of such Client Plans are pooled for investment purposes in a single master trust.
(p)The asset management affiliate of WFC qualifies as a “qualified professional asset manager” (QPAM), as that term is defined under Part V(a) of PTE 84-14. Notwithstanding the fact that the asset management affiliate of WFC satisfies the requirements, as set forth in Part V(a) of PTE 84-14, such asset management affiliate of WFC must also have total client assets under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million. Furthermore, the requirement that the asset management affiliate of WFC must have total client assets under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million, as set forth in this Section II(p), applies whether such asset management affiliate of WFC, qualifies as a QPAM, pursuant to Part V(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of PTE 84-14.
(q)No more than 20 percent of the assets of a Pooled Fund at the time of a covered transaction, are comprised of assets of In-House Plans for which WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, or an affiliate exercises investment discretion.
(r)The asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, maintain, or cause to be maintained, for a period of six
(6)years from the date of any covered transaction such records as are necessary to enable the persons, described, below, in Section II(s), to determine whether the conditions of this proposed exemption have been met, except that—
(1)No party in interest with respect to a plan which engages in the covered transactions, other than WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 502(i) of the Act or the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, if such records are not maintained, or not available for examination, as required, below, by Section II(s); and
(2)A prohibited transaction shall not be considered to have occurred solely because, due to circumstances beyond the control of the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, such records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period. (s)(1) Except as provided, below, in Section II(s)(2), and notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b)of section 504 of the Act, the records referred to, above, in Section II(r) are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by—
(i)Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, the Internal Revenue Service, or the SEC; or
(ii)Any fiduciary of any plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary; or
(iii)Any employer of participants and beneficiaries and any employee organization whose members are covered by a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any authorized employee or representative of these entities; or
(iv)Any participant or beneficiary of a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary;
(2)None of the persons described, above, in Section II(s)(1)(ii)-(iv) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential; and
(3)Should the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer refuse to disclose information on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Section II(s)(2), above, the asset management affiliate of WFC shall, by the close of the thirtieth
(30th)day following the request, provide a written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and that the Department may request such information. Section III—Definitions
(a)The term, “the Applicant,” means WFC.
(b)The term, “Affiliated Broker-Dealer,” means any broker-dealer affiliate, as “affiliate” is defined, below, in Section III(c), of the Applicant, as “Applicant” is defined, above, in Section III(a), that meets the requirements of this proposed exemption. Such Affiliated Broker-Dealer may participate in an underwriting or selling syndicate as a manager or member. The term, “manager,” means any member of an underwriting or selling syndicate who, either alone or together with other members of the syndicate, is authorized to act on behalf of the members of the syndicate in connection with the sale and distribution of the Securities, as defined, below, in Section III(h), being offered or who receives compensation from the members of the syndicate for its services as a manager of the syndicate.
(c)The term “affiliate” of a person includes:
(1)Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person;
(2)Any officer, director, partner, employee, or relative, as defined in section 3(15) of the Act, of such person; and
(3)Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.
(d)The term, “control,” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.
(e)The term, “Client Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan(s) that is subject to the Act and/or the Code, and for which plan(s) an asset management affiliate of WFC exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management or disposition of some or all of the assets of such plan(s), but excludes In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(l).
(f)The term, “Pooled Fund(s),” means a common or collective trust fund(s) or a pooled investment fund(s):
(1)In which employee benefit plan(s) subject to the Act and/or Code invest,
(2)Which is maintained by an asset management affiliate of WFC, (as the term, “affiliate” is defined, above, in Section III(c)), and
(3)For which such asset management affiliate of WFC exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting the management or disposition of the assets of such fund(s). (g)(1) The term, “Independent Fiduciary,” means a fiduciary of a plan who is unrelated to, and independent of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer. For purposes of this proposed exemption, a fiduciary of a plan will be deemed to be unrelated to, and independent of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, if such fiduciary represents that neither such fiduciary, nor any individual responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this proposed exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, and represents that such fiduciary shall advise the asset management affiliate of WFC within a reasonable period of time after any change in such facts occur.
(2)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section III(g), a fiduciary of a plan is not independent:
(i)If such fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer;
(ii)If such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration from WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer for his or her own personal account in connection with any transaction described in this proposed exemption;
(iii)If any officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the asset management affiliate of WFC responsible for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this proposed exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the sponsor of the plan or of the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I. However, if such individual is a director of the sponsor of the plan or of the responsible fiduciary, and if he or she abstains from participation in:
(A)The choice of the plan's investment manager/adviser; and
(B)the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for transactions described, above, in Section I, then Section III(g)(2)(iii) shall not apply.
(3)The term, “officer,” means a president, any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function (such as sales, administration, or finance), or any other officer who performs a policy-making function for WFC or any affiliate thereof.
(h)The term, “Securities,” shall have the same meaning as defined in section 2(36) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(36) (1996)). For purposes of this proposed exemption, mortgage-backed or other asset-backed securities rated by one of the Rating Organizations, as defined, below, in Section III(k), will be treated as debt securities.
(i)The term, “Eligible Rule 144A Offering,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3(a)(4) (17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4)) under the 1940 Act).
(j)The term, “qualified institutional buyer,” or the term, “QIB,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)) under the 1933 Act.
(k)The term, “Rating Organizations,” means Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., FitchRatings, Inc., Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, and Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto.
(l)The term, “In-House Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan(s) that is subject to the Act and/or the Code, and that is sponsored by the Applicant, as defined, above, in Section III(a) for its own employees. Summary of Facts and Representations The Applicant 1. WFC ( *i.e.* , the Applicant) is a diversified financial services company organized under the laws of Delaware and registered as a bank holding company and financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Applicant engages in banking and a variety of related financial services businesses. Retail, commercial and corporate banking services are provided through banking stores in a number of states. Other financial services are provided by subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, such as wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency services, computer and data processing services, trust services, mortgage-backed securities servicing and venture capital investment. Subsidiaries of the Applicant manage institutional portfolios for mutual funds, corporations, pension plans, endowments, foundations, health care organizations, public agencies, sovereign organizations, insurance companies and Taft-Hartley plans. These affiliates act as fiduciaries to employee benefit plans, providing trustee, recordkeeping, consulting and investment management services. The Applicant and its affiliates' activities are subject to oversight and regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Requested Exemption 2. The Applicant requests a prohibited transaction exemption that would permit the purchase of certain securities by an asset management affiliate of WFC (the Asset Manager), acting on behalf of Client Plans subject to the Act or Code, and acting on behalf of Client Plans and In-House Plans which are invested in certain Pooled Funds for which an Asset Manager acts as a fiduciary, from any person other than such Asset Manager or any affiliate thereof, during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate with respect to such Securities, where an Affiliated Broker-Dealer is a manager or member of such syndicate. Further, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer will receive no selling concessions in connection with the Securities sold to such plans. 3. The Applicant represents that if the Affiliated Broker-Dealer is a member of an underwriting or selling syndicate, the Asset Manager may purchase underwritten securities for Client Plans in accordance with Part III of Prohibited Transaction Exemption
(PTE)75-1, (40 FR 50845, October 31, 1975). Part III provides limited relief from the Act's prohibited transaction provisions for plan fiduciaries that purchase securities from an underwriting or selling syndicate of which the fiduciary or an affiliate is a member. However, such relief is not available if the Affiliated Broker-Dealer manages the underwriting or selling syndicate. 4. In addition, regardless of whether a fiduciary or its affiliate is a manager or merely a member of an underwriting or selling syndicate, PTE 75-1 does not provide relief for the purchase of unregistered securities. This includes securities purchased by an underwriter for resale to a “qualified institutional buyer”
(QIB)pursuant to the SEC's Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act). Rule 144A is commonly utilized in connection with sales of securities issued by foreign corporations to U.S. investors that are QIBs. Notwithstanding the unregistered nature of such shares, it is represented that syndicates selling securities under Rule 144A (Rule 144A Securities) are the functional equivalent of those selling registered securities. 5. The Applicant represents that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer regularly serves as manager of underwriting or selling syndicates for registered securities, and as a manager or a member of underwriting or selling syndicates for Rule 144A Securities. Accordingly, the Asset Manager is currently unable to purchase on behalf of the Client Plans Rule 144A Securities sold in such offerings, resulting in such Client Plans being unable to participate in significant investment opportunities. In addition, since 1975, there has been a significant amount of consolidation in the financial services industry in the United States. As a result, there are more situations in which a plan fiduciary may be affiliated with the manager of an underwriting syndicate. Further, many plans have expanded investment portfolios in recent years to include securities issued by foreign corporations. As a result, the exemption provided in PTE 75-1, Part III, is often unavailable for purchase of domestic and foreign securities that may otherwise constitute appropriate plan investments. Client Plan Investments in Offered Securities 6. The Applicant represents that the Asset Manager makes its investment decisions on behalf of, or renders investment advice to, Client Plans pursuant to the governing document of the particular Client Plan or Pooled Fund and the investment guidelines and objectives set forth in the management or advisory agreement. Because the Client Plans are covered by Title I of the Act, such investment decisions are subject to the fiduciary responsibility provisions of the Act. 7. The Applicant states, therefore, that the decision to invest in a particular offering is made on the basis of price, value and a Client Plan's investment criteria, not on whether the securities are currently being sold through an underwriting or selling syndicate. The Applicant further states that, because the Asset Manager's compensation for its services is generally based upon assets under management, the Asset Manager has little incentive to purchase securities in an offering in which the Affiliated Broker Dealer is an underwriter unless such a purchase is in the interests of Client Plans. If the assets under management do not perform well, the Asset Manager will receive less compensation and could lose clients, costs which far outweigh any gains from the purchase of underwritten securities. 3 1 In fact, under the terms of the proposed exemption set forth herein, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer may receive no compensation or other consideration, direct or indirect, in connection with any transaction that would be permitted under the proposed exemption. 8. The Applicant states that the Asset Manager generally purchases securities in large blocks because the same investments will be made across several accounts. If there is a new offering of an equity or fixed income security that the Asset Manager wishes to purchase, it may be able to purchase the security through the offering syndicate at a lower price than it would pay in the open market, without transaction costs and with reduced market impact if it is buying a relatively large quantity. This is because a large purchase in the open market can cause an increase in the market price and, consequently, in the cost of the securities. Purchasing from an offering syndicate can thus reduce the costs to the Client Plans. 9. However, absent an exemption, if the Affiliated Broker-Dealer is a manager of a syndicate that is underwriting a securities offering, the Asset Manager will be foreclosed from purchasing any securities on behalf of its Client Plans from that underwriting syndicate. This will force the Asset Manager to purchase the same securities in the secondary market. In such a circumstance, the Client Plans may incur greater costs both because the market price is often higher than the offering price, and because of transaction and market impact costs. In turn, this will cause the Asset Manager to forego other investment opportunities because the purchase price of the underwritten security in the secondary market exceeds the price that the Asset Manager would have paid to the selling syndicate. Underwriting of Securities Offerings 10. The Applicant represents that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer currently manages and participates in firm commitment underwriting syndicates for registered offerings of both equity and debt securities. While equity and debt underwritings may operate differently with regard to the actual sales process, the basic structures are the same. In a firm commitment underwriting, the underwriting syndicate acquires the securities from the issuer and then sells the securities to investors. 11. The Applicant represents that while, as a legal matter, a selling syndicate assumes the risk that the underwritten securities might not be fully sold, as a practical matter, this risk is reduced, in marketed deals, through “building a book” ( *i.e.* , taking indications of interest from potential purchasers) prior to pricing the securities. Accordingly, there is no incentive for the underwriters to use their discretionary accounts (or the discretionary accounts of their affiliates) to buy up the securities as a way to avoid underwriting liabilities. 12. Each selling syndicate has a lead manager, who is the principal contact between the syndicate and the issuer and who is responsible for organizing and coordinating the syndicate. The syndicate may also have co-managers, who generally assist the lead manager in working with the issuer to prepare the registration statement to be filed with the SEC and in distributing the underwritten securities. While equity syndicates typically include additional members that are not managers, more recently, membership in many debt syndicates has been limited to lead and co-managers. 13. If more than one underwriter is involved in a selling syndicate, the lead manager, who has been selected by the issuer of the underwritten securities, contacts other underwriters, and the underwriters enter into an “Agreement Among Underwriters.” Most lead managers have a standing form of agreement. This document is then supplemented for the particular deal by sending an “invitation telex” or “terms telex” that sets forth particular terms to the other underwriters. 14. The arrangement between the syndicate and the issuer of the underwritten securities is embodied in an underwriting agreement, which is signed on behalf of the underwriters by one or more of the managers. In a firm commitment underwriting, the underwriting agreement provides, subject to certain closing conditions, that the underwriters are obligated to purchase the underwritten securities from the issuer in accordance with their respective commitments. This obligation is met by using the proceeds received from the buyers of the securities in the offering, although there is a risk that the underwriters will have to pay for a portion of the securities in the event that not all of the securities are sold. 15. The Applicant represents that, generally, the risk that the securities will not be sold is small because the underwriting agreement is not executed until after the underwriters have obtained sufficient indications of interest to purchase the securities from a sufficient number of investors to assure that all the securities being offered will be acquired by investors. Once the underwriting agreement is executed, the underwriters immediately begin contacting the investors to confirm the sales, first orally and then by written confirmation, and sales are finalized within hours and sometimes minutes. In registered transactions, the underwriters are particularly anxious to complete the sales as soon as possible because until they “break syndicate,” they cannot enter the market. In many cases, the underwriters will act as market-makers for the security. A market-maker holds itself out as willing to buy or sell the security for its own account on a regular basis. 16. The Applicant represents that the process of “building a book” or soliciting indications of interest occurs as follows: In a registered equity offering, after a registration statement is filed with the SEC and, while it is under review by the SEC staff, representatives of the issuer of the securities and the selling syndicate managers conduct meetings with potential investors, who learn about the company and the underwritten securities. Potential investors also receive a preliminary prospectus. The underwriters cannot make any firm sales until the registration statement is declared effective by the SEC. Prior to the effective date, while the investors cannot become legally obligated to make a purchase, they indicate whether they have an interest in buying, and the managers compile a “book” of investors who are willing to “circle” a particular portion of the issue. These indications of interest are sometimes referred to as a “soft circle” because investors cannot be legally bound to buy the securities until the registration statement is effective. However, the Applicant represents that investors generally follow through on their indications of interest, and would be expected to do so, barring any sudden adverse developments (in which case it is likely that the offering would be withdrawn or the price range modified and the process restarted), because, if the investors that gave an indication of interest do not follow through, the underwriters may be reluctant to include them in future offerings. 17. Assuming that the marketing efforts have produced sufficient indications of interest, the Applicant represents that the issuer of the securities and the selling syndicate managers together will set the price of the securities and ask the SEC to declare the registration effective. After the registration statement becomes effective and the underwriting agreement is executed, the underwriters contact those investors that have indicated an interest in purchasing securities in the offering to execute the sales. The Applicant represents that offerings are often oversubscribed, and many have an over-allotment option that the underwriters can exercise to acquire additional shares from the issuer. Where an offering is oversubscribed, the underwriters decide how to allocate the securities among the potential purchasers. However, pursuant to the National Association of Securities Dealers Rule 2790, new issue securities (as defined under such rule) may not be sold directly to: officers, directors, general partners or associated persons of any broker-dealer (other than limited business broker-dealers); any person who has the authority to buy or sell securities for: a bank, saving and loan institution, insurance and investment companies, investment advisors and collective investment accounts; and certain of the family members of such persons (collectively, “restricted persons”). Restricted persons may still participate, to a limited extent, in allocations of “new issues” through pooled investment vehicles in which they invest and may receive directly new issue allocations in certain other limited circumstances. 18. The Applicant represents that debt offerings may be “negotiated” offerings, “competitive bid” offerings, or “bought deals.” “Negotiated” offerings, which often involve non-investment grade securities, are conducted in the same manner as an equity offering with regard to when the underwriting agreement is executed and how the securities are offered. “Competitive bid” offerings, in which the issuer determines the price for the securities through competitive bidding rather than negotiating the price with the underwriting syndicate, are performed under “shelf” registration statements pursuant to the SEC's Rule 415 under the 1933 Act (17 CFR 230.415). 4 4 Rule 415 permits an issuer to sell debt as well as equity securities under an effective registration statement previously filed with the SEC by filing a post-effective amendment or supplemental prospectus. 19. In a competitive bid offering, prospective lead underwriters will bid against one another to purchase debt securities, based upon their determinations of the degree of investor interest in the securities. Depending on the level of investor interest and the size of the offering, a bidding lead underwriter may bring in co-managers to assist in the sales process. Most of the securities are frequently sold within hours, or sometimes even less than an hour, after the securities are made available for purchase. 20. Because of market forces and the requirements of Rule 415, the competitive bid process is generally available only to issuers of investment-grade securities who have been subject to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act for at least one
(1)year. 21. Occasionally, in highly-rated debt issues, underwriters “buy” the entire deal off of a “shelf registration” before obtaining indications of interest. These “bought” deals involve issuers whose securities enjoy a deep and liquid secondary market, such that an underwriter has confidence without pre-marketing that it can identify purchasers for the bonds. Structure of Diversified Financial Services Firms 22. The Applicant represents that there are internal policies in place that restrict contact and the flow of information between investment management personnel and non-investment management personnel in the same or affiliated financial service firms. These policies are designed to protect against “insider trading,” *i.e.* , trading on information not available to the general public that may affect the market price of the securities. Diversified financial services firms must be concerned about insider trading problems because one part of the firm— *e.g.* , the mergers and acquisitions group—could come into possession of non-public information regarding an upcoming transaction involving a particular issuer, while another part of the firm— *e.g.* , the investment management group—could be trading in the securities of that issuer for its clients. 23. The Applicant represents that the business separation policies and procedures of WFC and its affiliates are also structured to restrict the flow of any information to or from the Asset Manager that could limit its flexibility in managing client assets, and of information obtained or developed by the Asset Manager that could be used by other parts of the organization, to the detriment of the Asset Manager's clients. 24. The Applicant represents that major clients of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer include investment management firms that are competitors of the Asset Manager. Similarly, the Asset Manager deals on a regular basis with broker-dealers that compete with the Affiliated Broker-Dealer. If special consideration were shown to an affiliate, such conduct would likely have an adverse effect on the relationships of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer and of the Asset Manager with firms that compete with such affiliate. Therefore, a goal of the Applicant's business separation policy is to avoid any possible perception of improper flows of information between the Affiliated Broker-Dealer and the Asset Manager, in order to prevent any adverse impact on client and business relationships. Underwriting Compensation 25. The Applicant represents that the underwriters are compensated through the “spread,” or difference, between the price at which the underwriters purchase the securities from the issuer and the price at which the securities are sold to the public. The spread is divided into three components. 26. The first component includes the management fee, which generally represents an agreed upon percentage of the overall spread and is allocated among the lead manager and co-managers. Where there is more than one managing underwriter, the way the management fee will be allocated among the managers is generally agreed upon between the managers and the issuer prior to soliciting indications of interest. Thus, the allocation of the management fee is not reflective of the amount of securities that a particular manager sells in an offering. 27. The second component is the underwriting fee, which represents compensation to the underwriters (including the non-managers, if any) for the risks they assume in connection with the offering and for the use of their capital. This component of the spread is also used to cover the expenses of the underwriting that are not otherwise reimbursed by the issuer of the securities. 28. The first and second components of the “spread” are received without regard to how the underwritten securities are allocated for sales purposes or to whom the securities are sold. The third component of the spread is the selling concession, which generally constitutes 60 percent or more of the spread. The selling concession compensates the underwriters for their actual selling efforts. The allocation of selling concessions among the underwriters generally follows the allocation of the securities for sales purposes. However, a buyer of the underwritten securities may designate other broker-dealers (who may be other underwriters, as well as broker-dealers outside the syndicate) to receive the selling concessions arising from the securities they purchase. 29. Securities are allocated for sales purposes into two categories. The first and larger category is the “institutional pot,” which is the pot of securities from which sales are made to institutional investors. Selling concessions for securities sold from the institutional pot are generally designated by the purchaser to go to particular underwriters or other broker-dealers. If securities are sold from the institutional pot, the selling syndicate managers sometimes receive a portion of the selling concessions, referred to as a “fixed designation,” 5 attributable to securities sold in this category, without regard to who sold the securities or to whom they were sold. For securities covered by this proposed exemption, however, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer may not receive, either directly or indirectly, any compensation or consideration that is attributable to the fixed designation generated by purchases of securities by the Asset Manager on behalf of its Client Plans. 5 A fixed designation is sometimes referred to as an “auto pot split.” 30. The second category of allocated securities is “retail,” which are the securities retained by the underwriters for sale to their retail customers. The underwriters receive the selling concessions from their respective retail retention allocations. Securities may be shifted between the two categories based upon whether either category is oversold or undersold during the course of the offering. 31. The Applicant asserts that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer's inability to receive any selling concessions, or any compensation attributable to the fixed designations generated by purchases of securities by the Asset Manager's Client Plans, removes the primary economic incentive for the Asset Manager to make purchases that are not in the interests of its Client Plans from offerings for which the Affiliated Broker-Dealer is an underwriter. The reason is that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer will not receive any additional fees as a result of such purchases by the Asset Manager. Rule 144A Securities 32. The Applicant represents that a number of the offerings of Rule 144A Securities in which the Affiliated Broker-Dealer participates represent good investment opportunities for the Asset Manager's Client Plans. Particularly with respect to foreign securities, a Rule 144A offering may provide the least expensive and most accessible means for obtaining these securities. However, PTE 75-1, Part III, does not cover Rule 144A Securities. Therefore, absent an exemption, the Asset Manager is foreclosed from purchasing such securities for its Client Plans in offerings in which the Affiliated Broker-Dealer participates. 33. The Applicant states that Rule 144A acts as a “safe harbor” exemption from the registration provisions of the 1933 Act for sales of certain types of securities to QIBs. QIBs include several types of institutional entities, such as employee benefit plans and commingled trust funds holding assets of such plans, which own and invest on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of unaffiliated issuers. 34. Any securities may be sold pursuant to Rule 144A except for those of the same class or similar to a class that is publicly traded in the United States, or certain types of investment company securities. This limitation is designed to prevent side-by-side public and private markets developing for the same class of securities as is the reason that Rule 144A transactions are generally limited to debt securities. 35. Buyers of Rule 144A Securities must be able to obtain, upon request, basic information concerning the business of the issuer and the issuer's financial statements, much of the same information as would be furnished if the offering were registered. This condition does not apply, however, to an issuer filing reports with the SEC under the 1934 Act, for which reports are publicly available. The condition also does not apply to a “foreign private issuer” for whom reports are furnished to the SEC under Rule 12g3-2(b) of the 1934 Act (17 CFR 240.12g3-2(b)), or to issuers who are foreign governments or political subdivisions thereof and are eligible to use Schedule B under the 1933 Act (which describes the information and documents required to be contained in a registration statement filed by such issuers). 36. Sales under Rule 144A, like sales in a registered offering, remain subject to the protections of the anti-fraud rules of federal and state securities laws. These rules include Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder (17 CFR 240.10b-5) and Section 17(a) of the 1933 Act (15 U.S.C. 77a). Through these and other provisions, the SEC may use its full range of enforcement powers to exercise its regulatory authority over the market for Rule 144A Securities, in the event that it detects improper practices. 37. The Applicant represents that this potential liability for fraud provides a considerable incentive to the issuer of the securities and the members of the selling syndicate to insure that the information contained in a Rule 144A offering memorandum is complete and accurate in all material respects. Among other things, the lead manager typically obtains an opinion from a law firm, commonly referred to as a “10b-5” opinion, stating that the law firm has no reason to believe that the offering memorandum contains any untrue statement of material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make sure the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, are not misleading. 38. The Applicant represents that Rule 144A offerings generally are structured in the same manner as underwritten registered offerings. The major difference is that a Rule 144A offering uses an offering memorandum rather than a prospectus that is filed with the SEC. The marketing process is the same in most respects, except that the selling efforts are limited to contacting QIBs and there are no general solicitations for buyers ( *e.g.* , no general advertising). In addition, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer's role in these offerings is typically that of a lead or co-manager. Generally, there are no non-manager members in a Rule 144A selling syndicate. However, the Applicant requests that the proposed exemption extend to authorization for situations where the Affiliated Broker-Dealer acts only as a syndicate member, not as a manager. Summary 39. In summary, the Applicant represents that the proposed transactions will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption set forth in section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a)The Client Plans will gain access to desirable investment opportunities;
(b)In each offering, the Asset Manager will purchase the securities for its Client Plans from an underwriter or broker-dealer other than the Affiliated Broker-Dealer;
(c)Conditions similar to those of PTE 75-1, Part III, will restrict the types of securities that may be purchased, the types of underwriting or selling syndicates and issuers involved, and the price and timing of the purchases;
(d)The amount of securities that the Asset Manager may purchase on behalf of Client Plans will be subject to percentage limitations;
(e)The Affiliated Broker-Dealer will not be permitted to receive, either directly, indirectly or through designation, any selling concessions with respect to the securities sold to the Asset Manager for the account of a Client Plan;
(f)Prior to any purchase of securities, the Asset Manager will make the required disclosures to an Independent Fiduciary of each Client Plan and obtain written authorization to engage in the covered transactions;
(g)The Asset Manager will provide regular reporting to an Independent Fiduciary of each Client Plan with respect to all securities purchased pursuant to the exemption, if granted;
(h)Each Client Plan will be subject to net asset requirements, with certain exceptions for Pooled Funds; and
(i)the Asset Manager must have total assets under management in excess of $5 billion and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million, in addition to qualifying as a QPAM, pursuant to Part V(a) of PTE 84-14. *Notice to Intersted Persons:* The Applicant represents that because those potentially interested Plans proposing to engage in the covered transactions cannot all be identified, the only practical means of notifying Independent Plan Fiduciaries or Plan Participants of such affected Plans is by publication of the proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, any comments from interested persons must be received by the Department no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice of proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone
(202)693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.) Owens Corning Savings Plan and Owens Corning Savings and Security Plan (collectively, the Plans) Located in Toledo, Ohio [Exemption Application Numbers D-11402 and D-11403, respectively] Proposed Exemption The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570 Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(E)of the Code, shall not apply, effective October 31, 2006, to:
(1)The acquisition by the Plans of certain warrants (the Warrants) issued by Owens Corning (the Applicant), a party in interest with respect to the Plans, where such Warrants have been issued in exchange for the common stock (the Old Common Stock) of the Applicant incident to a bankruptcy reorganization;
(2)The holding of the Warrants by each of the Plans pending the exercise or other disposition of said Warrants; and
(3)The exercise of the Warrants by participants in the Plans to permit acquisition of shares of the Applicant's new common stock (the New Common Stock), provided that the following conditions were satisfied:
(a)The Plans had no ability to affect the provisions of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Owens Corning and Its Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession (the Reorganization Plan) approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court) on September 26, 2006 pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code);
(b)The acquisition and holding of the Warrants by the Plans occurred in connection with the Reorganization Plan, in which all holders of the Applicant's stock of the same class have been and will be treated similarly;
(c)The Warrants were acquired automatically and without any action on the part of the Plans;
(d)The Plans did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition or holding of the Warrants;
(e)The Plans will not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the exercise of the Warrants; and
(f)All decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants of the Plans in whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the respective provisions of the Plans pertaining to the individually-directed investment of such accounts. Summary of Facts and Representations 1. The Applicant, a leading manufacturer of building materials systems and composite solutions, is a Delaware corporation with business headquarters in Toledo, Ohio. The Applicant sponsors the Plans, each of which is a defined contribution plan established and maintained pursuant to the requirements of section 401(a) of the Code. In addition, each of the Plans provides for participant-directed individual accounts in accordance with the provisions of section 404(c) of the Act and the corresponding regulations located at 29 CFR 2550.404c-1. The Owens Corning Savings and Security Plan held $158,009,167.04 in assets as of September 27, 2006, and included 3,160 participants as of October 19, 2006. The Owens Corning Savings Plan held $452,290,359.36 in assets as of September 27, 2006, and included 1,130 participants as of October 19, 2006. 2. On October 5, 2000, the Applicant (including seventeen of its United States subsidiaries) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Applicant filed for relief under Chapter 11 to address the substantial and growing demands on the Applicant's cash flow resulting from asbestos-related litigation. On September 26, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Reorganization Plan for the Company. Holders of the Old Common Stock (including the Plans) were permitted to vote on the Reorganization Plan, and individual participants in the Plans were similarly allowed to direct the voting of the Old Common Stock allocated to their accounts. The Reorganization Plan became effective on October 31, 2006, at which time the Old Common Stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and all outstanding shares of the Old Common Stock were cancelled. On October 31, 2006, the Applicant issued the Warrants to stockholders (including the Plans) in full satisfaction of the Old Common Stock interests previously held by the stockholders. The Applicant represents that the Warrants do not constitute qualifying employer securities as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the Act. Each Warrant permits the holder to purchase a share of the New Common Stock issued by the Applicant at the price of $45.25 per share (the Strike Price). The Applicant represents that Warrants which are not exercised by their respective holders shall expire seven
(7)years after their date of issuance. 3. The Applicant represents that, prior to September 29, 2000, participants in each of the Plans could elect to have all or a portion of their accounts invested in the Owens Corning Stock Fund (the Stock Fund), which consisted primarily of Old Common Stock. Matching contributions by the Applicant under each of the Plans that were made before September 29, 2000 were invested in the Stock Fund; in addition, 50 percent of the Applicant's profit-sharing contributions to the Plans made prior to that date were invested in the Stock Fund. The Stock Fund was closed to new investments as of September 29, 2000; after that date, participants in the Plans were no longer permitted to invest new contributions or to transfer their existing Plan balances into the Stock Fund. 6 However, participants in each of the Plans retained the right to transfer all or a portion of the amounts they had invested in the Stock Fund to any other investment fund available under the respective Plans. This transfer right ceased to apply as of October 31, 2006, when shares of the Old Common Stock were extinguished. 6 The Department expresses no opinion herein as to whether, on or before September 29, 2000, the fiduciaries of the Plans were in compliance with the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of Part 4 of Title I of the Act in connection with monitoring the investment options available to participants in the Plans, including the option to invest participant contributions in the Stock Fund. 4. The Applicant represents that the Warrants are, by their terms, transferable. A market for the Warrants currently exists; the Applicant represents that, as of February 27, 2007, each participant in the Plans have been able to direct (and some have directed) the trustee of their respective Plans to sell the Warrants allocated to their accounts through the Plans' broker, Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC (Fidelity). Fidelity is not affiliated with the Applicant. Current trading of the Warrants occurs on the Over-the-Counter
(OTC)market, and bid and ask prices for the Warrants on the OTC market are listed on a centralized, electronic quotation service known as the Pink Sheets. 7 As of May 4, 2007, the Warrants were selling on the OTC market at $5.10-$5.15. 8 The Applicant represents that commissions and Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)fees associated with the sale of the Warrants have been and will be paid by participants; the commissions are paid to Fidelity for execution of the trades. The Applicant further represents that the commission rate charged by Fidelity for real time trades of such securities is generally 2.9 cents per unit. In addition, as required by law, Fidelity has deducted the so-called “SEC Fee”, currently in the amount of 0.00153%, from the cash proceeds of all the executed trades and submitted it to the SEC. 7 The symbol for the Warrants, known as the Class A12-A in the Reorganization Plan, is OCWAZ. 8 Based on the Applicant's representations, to the extent the Warrants are publicly traded on a national exchange to unrelated third parties, no exemptive relief is being provided by the Department. 5. If the Department approves this exemption application, the Applicant represents that participants currently holding the Warrants will be permitted to exercise them to purchase shares of the New Common Stock, but not if the current market price of the New Common Stock remains below the Strike Price. 9 If a participant in one of the Plans determines to exercise the Warrants allocated to his or her account, funds will be transferred from the participant's other investment options under the Plan to purchase the New Common Stock. 10 At this particular time, the Applicant represents that there is no option that would permit a participant to invest in the New Common Stock. 9 The New Common Stock currently trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol OC. As of the close of trading on May 10, 2007, the share price of the New Common Stock stood at $31.69. 10 The Applicant acknowledges that the appropriate fiduciaries of the Plans shall be responsible for monitoring the investment options available to participants in the Plans, and taking such action as they deem appropriate under the circumstances. For example, such action may include preventing participants from exercising the Warrants if the current market price for the New Common Stock is below the Strike Price, or causing the Plans to sell the Warrants in the event that it becomes clear that they would otherwise expire unexercised by participants. 6. In summary, the Applicant represents that the proposed transaction meets the statutory criteria of section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a)The Plans had no ability to affect the provisions of the Reorganization Plan approved by the Bankruptcy Court on September 26, 2006 pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code;
(b)the acquisition and holding of the Warrants by the Plans occurred in connection with the Reorganization Plan, in which all holders of the Applicant's stock of the same class have been and will be treated similarly;
(c)the Warrants were acquired automatically and without any action on the part of the Plans;
(d)the Plans did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition or holding of the Warrants;
(e)the Plans will not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the exercise of the Warrants; and
(f)all decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants of the Plans in whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the respective provisions of the Plans pertaining to the individually-directed investment of such accounts. *Notice to Interested Persons:* Notice of the proposed exemption shall be given to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the Applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Comments and requests for a hearing are due forty-five
(45)days after publication of the notice in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Judge of the Department, telephone
(202)693-8339. (This is not a toll-free number). BSC Services Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) Located in Philadelphia, PA [Application No. D-11390] Proposed Exemption The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). 11 11 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code. Section I. Covered Transactions If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2), and 407(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(E)of the Code, shall not apply, effective April 27, 2006, to
(1)The acquisition by the Plan of certain stock rights (the Rights) pursuant to a stock rights offering (the Offering) from First Bank of Delaware (the Bank), a party in interest and the parent company of BSC Services Corp. (BSC or the Applicant), which is the Plan sponsor as well as a party in interest with respect to the Plan;
(2)the holding of the Rights by the Plan during the subscription period of the Offering; and
(3)the disposition or exercise of the Rights by the Plan. Section II. Conditions This proposed exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
(a)The Rights were acquired by the Plan pursuant to Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts.
(b)The Plan's receipt of the Rights occurred in connection with the Rights Offering made available to all shareholders of the Bank's common stock (the Bank Stock).
(c)All decisions regarding the holding and disposition of the Rights by the Plan were made in accordance with Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts by the individual participants whose accounts in the Plan received Rights in the Offering, and if no instructions were received, the Rights expired.
(d)The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted from an independent act of the Bank as a corporate entity, and all holders of the Rights, including the Plan, were treated in the same manner with respect to the acquisition, holding and disposition of such Rights.
(e)The Plan received the same proportionate number of the Rights as other owners of Bank Stock. Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be effective as of April 27, 2006. Summary of Facts and Representations 1. The Bank, which is located at 1000 Rocky Run Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware, is a full-service, State-chartered commercial bank that offers a variety of credit and depository banking services. The Bank's commercial loan services are primarily offered to individuals and business in the Delaware area. The Bank also makes short-term consumer loans through third-party servicers in various states and via the Internet, and it offers tax refund anticipation loans in numerous states. Moreover, the Bank offers credit and debit cards to customers nationally. The majority of loan balances from these national products are sold on a non-recourse basis. The Bank's deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC). As a state chartered bank which is not a member of the Federal Reserve System, the Bank is subject to examination and comprehensive regulation by the Delaware State Banking Commissioner as well as by the FDIC. As of December 31, 2006, the Bank had total assets of $123,913,000, total stockholders' equity of approximately $25,853,000, total deposits of approximately $92,636,000 and net loans receivable of approximately $67,697,000. The Bank's net income for the year ended December 31, 2005 was $3,434,000. The Bank Stock is listed for quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol FBOD (OBB). It is represented that the Bank Stock is both an “employer security” 12 and a “qualifying employer security.” 13 12 Under section 407(d)(1) of the Act, the term “employer security” means a security issued by an employer of employees covered by a plan, or by an affiliate of such employer. 13 Under section 407(d)(5) of the Act, the term “qualifying employer security” means an employer security which is stock, a marketable obligation, or an interest in a publicly traded partnership. The Bank was spun off as an independent company from Republic First Bancorp., Inc.
(RFB)through a distribution of the Bank's common stock on January 31, 2005. Prior to the spin-off, the Bank was a subsidiary of RFB, which was then a two-bank holding company. RFB's other subsidiary was, and still is, Republic First Bank (the PA Bank), a Pennsylvania chartered bank. 2. The Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank. The Applicant is the employer of employees who work for the Bank. The Applicant provides operations, accounting, compliance and human resource staffing to the Bank and the PA Bank at 1608 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. FBD Capital Markets Group, Inc. (FBD Capital) is also a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank. FBD Capital was recently formed to offer short-term, high-yield mezzanine financing primarily in Delaware. FBD Capital operates out of the same facility as the Applicant. 4. The Plan, which was formerly known as the “Republic First Bank 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan,” was established on September 1, 1991 by RFB. The Plan is a defined contribution plan that previously covered full-time employees of the Bank and the PA Bank. Effective January 1, 2005, the Applicant became the new Plan sponsor as part of an anticipated spin-off of the Bank, which occurred on February 1, 2005. The Plan was also adopted by the Applicant, the Bank, the PA Bank and RFB. As of May 23, 2007, the Plan had 229 participants and total assets of approximately $8.1 million. In addition, the Plan is a participant-directed individual account plan intended to satisfy the requirements of section 404(c) of the Act. The Plan offers participants 67 funds and a personal brokerage account (the Personal Brokerage Account) in which participants can invest all or a portion of their account balances in Bank Stock. As of April 27, 2006, the Plan was the record holder of 58,161 shares of Bank Stock valued at $154,127 (or $2.65 per share) on such date, which were allocated to the Personal Brokerage Accounts of all of the Plan participants. At that time, the Bank Stock accounted for approximately 3.3 percent of the $4.6 million in total Plan assets and it represented approximately 0.007 percent of the 7,943,720 shares of total outstanding Bank Stock. 5. The Plan's trustees (the Trustees) are Harry Madonna, Chairman of the Board for the Bank, and Paul Frenkiel, Chief Financial Officer of the Bank. The Trustees also are members of the Plan Administrative Committee, which is the fiduciary responsible for Plan matters. Further, the custodian (the Custodian) of the Plan is John Hancock Life Insurance Company, which is part of Manulife Financial. The Custodian is located at 200 Bloor Street, East Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Custodian holds legal title to the Plan's assets and it executes investment directions in accordance with participants' written or electronic instructions. In offering a Personal Brokerage Account to each Plan participant, the Custodian partners with TRUSOURCE Trust Outsourcing Partners (Trusource) of Costa Mesa, California. TruSource administers each Personal Brokerage Account and partners with AmeriTrade, the designated broker (the Broker) for such accounts. 6. In an Offering Circular dated May 1, 2006 (the Offering Circular), the Bank announced a special Rights Offering. The Rights Offering would be an independent act of the Bank as a corporate entity under which all shareholders of Bank Stock, including the Plan, were to be treated in a like manner. The Rights Offering would allow the Bank to raise equity capital for the operation of FBD Capital. The Rights Offering would also afford its existing shareholders a preferential opportunity to subscribe for up to 3.4 million in new shares of Bank Stock and to maintain their proportionate ownership interests. 7. Holders of record of Bank Stock at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving Time on April 27, 2006 (the Record Date) each were entitled to receive a number of Rights determined by dividing
(a)the number of shares of the Bank Stock owned by the shareholder by
(b)2.33639, except that, if the number so calculated included a fraction, the number of Rights the shareholder would receive was rounded down to the nearest whole number. Each Right consisted of a “Basic Subscription Right” and an “Over-Subscription Right.” The Basic Subscription Right entitled the holder to purchase one share of Bank Stock at a purchase price of $2.25 per share, which was determined by the Bank's Board of Directors. If the shareholder exercised all of his or her Basic Subscription Rights, the shareholder was entitled to exercise his/her Over-Subscription Right to purchase, for $2.25 per share, one additional share of Bank Stock for every share of Bank Stock to which the shareholder had subscribed. The Rights were not transferable. 14 14 Among other things, a fiduciary of a plan is prohibited from allowing the plan to acquire any employer security which is not a “qualifying employer security.” Although the Rights constituted an “employer security” under section 407(d)(1) of the Act, inasmuch as they were issued by the Applicant, which is an employer of employees covered under the Plan, they did not represent a “qualifying employer security” under section 407(d)(5) of the Act. This is because the Rights were not stock, a marketable obligation or an interest in a publicly-traded partnership. Therefore, the Applicant has requested a retroactive administrative exemption from the Department with respect to the acquisition of the Rights by the Plan and the subsequent holding and exercise of the Rights by the Plan participants. If granted, the exemption would be effective as of April 27, 2006, the Record Date. 8. On May 8, 2006, all Plan participants (there were 210 at that time) were mailed:
(a)A copy of the Offering Circular for the Bank; and
(b)a letter from the Broker describing the procedures for participant directions with respect to the Rights Offering. Participants were required to call the toll-free number listed in the letter to direct the Broker either to exercise the Rights allocable to their Personal Brokerage Accounts or to opt out of the Rights Offering. 9. Plan participants were required to contact the Broker prior to 5 p.m. on June 19, 2006 (the Expiration Time). The Broker was responsible for exercising the Rights at the direction of each participant. In order for a participant's Rights to be exercised, RFB, the Subscription Agent, had to receive an election form from the Broker, together with payment for the shares which were to be purchased by the Expiration Time. Rights not exercised prior to the Expiration Time would, by their terms, terminate and have no value. 10. Thus, the Plan acquired the Rights pursuant to the Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participants' accounts. All decisions regarding the holding and disposition of the Rights by the Plan were made in accordance with these Plan provisions. The Plan participants were issued, and the Broker received from the Plan participants, a total of 24,893 Rights, of which 8,822 were exercised. This represented approximately 0.3 percent of the 3.4 million Rights that were issued and exercised for $2.25 per share. As noted above, those Rights not exercised expired. Of the total Rights issued and exercised, 2,347,272 Shares represented Basic Subscription Rights and 1,052,728 Shares were attributed to Over-Subscription Rights. The Rights were not listed for trading on any stock exchange or on the OTC Bulletin Board. The total number of shares of Bank Stock outstanding at the Expiration Time, as adjusted to give effect to the shares issued pursuant to the Rights Offering, was 11,343,720 shares. The Bank compensated the Subscription Agent for fees generated in connection with the Rights Offering. Thus, no fees paid to the Subscription Agent were attributable to Plan assets. Although all shareholders of record were responsible for paying any other fees associated with the exercise of the Rights, the Subscription Agent waived all such fees. 11. For each Plan participant who directed the Broker to exercise Rights attributable to his or her Personal Brokerage Account, the funds which were needed to pay the $2.25 per share exercise price were obtained by either selling specific investments at the participant's direction or by using cash equivalents in such participant's account, again at the participant's direction. Moreover, a participant who, under the terms of the Plan, was eligible to elect to receive a taxable distribution from his or her Plan account, was permitted, under the terms of the Offering Circular, to direct the Broker to cause such participant to be substituted for the record holder of the Bank Stock held in the Plan and to exercise the Rights attributable to the Bank Stock the participant beneficially owned. This was only permissible to the extent the terms of the Plan permitted a distribution to a participant and would be treated as a taxable distribution of a portion of the participant's Plan account. 12. In summary, the Applicant represents that the transactions satisfied the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a)The Rights were acquired by the Plan pursuant to Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts.
(b)The Plan's receipt of the Rights occurred in connection with the Rights Offering that was made available to all shareholders of Bank Stock.
(c)All decisions regarding the holding and disposition of the Rights by the Plan were made in accordance with Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts by the individual participants whose accounts in the Plan received Rights in the Offering, and if no instructions were received, the Rights expired.
(d)The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted from an independent act of the Bank as a corporate entity, and all holders of the Rights, including the Plan, were treated in the same manner with respect to the acquisition, holding and disposition of such Rights.
(e)The Plan received the same proportionate number of the Rights as other owners of Bank Stock. *Notice to Interested Persons:* Notice of proposed exemption will be provided to all interested persons by first class mail within 30 days of publication of the notice of pendency in the **Federal Register** . Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of pendency of the exemption as published in the **Federal Register** and a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which will inform interested persons of their right to comment on the proposed exemption. Comments are due within 60 days of the date of publication of the proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anna M. Vaughan of the Department, telephone number
(202)693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.) General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2)Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3)The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4)The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June, 2007. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-12672 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Proposed Information Collection Request of the ETA-5130 Benefit Appeals Report; Comment Request AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 3506 (b)(1)(2)(3)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or by accessing: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Stephanie Garcia, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4516, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number
(202)693-3207 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: *garcia.stephanie@dol.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The ETA-5130, Benefit Appeals Report, contains information on the number of unemployment insurance appeals and the resultant decisions classified by program, appeals level, cases filed and disposed of (workflow), and decisions by level, appellant, and issue. The data on this report are used by the Department of Labor to monitor the benefit appeals process in the State Workforce Agencies
(SWAs)and to develop any needed plans for remedial action. The data are also needed for workload forecasts and to determine administrative funding. If this information were not available, developing problems might not be discovered early enough to allow for timely solutions and avoidance of time consuming and costly corrective action. II. Review Focus Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension collection of the ETA-5130 Benefit Appeals Report. Comments are requested to: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. III. Current Actions *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* Benefit Appeals Report. *OMB Number:* 1205-0172. *Agency Number:* ETA-5130. *Recordkeeping:* 3-year record retention. *Affected Public:* State Governments. *Cite/Reference/Form/etc:* Social Security Act, Section 303(a)(6). *Total Respondents:* 53. *Frequency:* Monthly. *Total Responses:* 648 (636 responses for ETA 5130 Regular report and estimated 12 responses for ETA 5130 Extended Benefits report). *Average Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 648 hours (636 hours for the ETA 5130 Regular report + estimated 12 hours for ETA 5130 Extended Benefits). *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: June 19, 2007. Cheryl Atkinson, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security. [FR Doc. E7-12719 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Request for Certification of Compliance—Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279-2) for the following: *Applicant/Location:* Specialty Protein Producers, LLC/Norfolk, Nebraska. *Principal Product:* The loan, guarantee, or grant application is for a new business venture to purchase and install equipment to manufacture organic soy protein isolates, organic soy coffee creamer, and organic soy fiber. The NAICS industry code for this enterprise is: 311222 Soybean Processing. DATES: All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than July 16, 2007. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail Dais.Anthony@dol.gov; or transmit via fax 202-693-3015 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number
(202)693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in:
(a)A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or,
(b)An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th of June, 2007. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-12739 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Proposed Information Collection Request; Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Qualification/Certification Program Request for MSHA; Individual Identification Number
(MIIN)ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or containing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to, Debbie Ferraro, Management Services Division, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on computer disk, or via e-mail to *Ferraro.Debbie@DOL.GOV.* Ms. Ferraro can be reached at
(202)693-9821 (voice), or
(202)693-9801 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the employee listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background MSHA currently uses qualification and certification information on miners who have satisfactorily completed required training and examinations to issue cards indicating the licensure of that miner. MSHA inspectors, during inspections, review these cards to determine compliance with regulations. In addition, miners, when applying for a job, use these cards as a part of their resumes. Mine operators needing people with specific certifications, qualifications and approvals hire and assign work relying on the information provided on the cards. The information is also used to determine mine operators' compliance with approved training plans and to monitor safety-training programs and during investigations including accident and legal proceedings to revoke the qualifications/certifications and approvals of individuals based on a fraudulent reporting of training or performance. Upon request, MSHA furnishes information on specific miners to mine operators and representatives of miners. The information also is used to verify whether individuals who complete and sign dust data cards that accompany dust samples collected fulfill the sampling requirements of 30 CFR part 70, 71 or 90. It also enables the Agency to track underground miners who show early evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis and have exercised their option to work in a low dust environment under 30 CFR part 90 to determine if they have been adequately sampled by mine operators and are in compliance with federal dust standards. II. Desired Focus of Comments Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection requirement related to conversion of Social Security Numbers to MSHA Individual Identification Numbers. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: * Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of MSHA's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; * Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; * Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and * Address the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses)to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or viewed on the internet by accessing the MSHA home page *(http://www.msha.gov./)* and selecting “Rules and Regs”, then selecting “Fed Reg Docs.” III. Current Actions The Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA)issues certifications, qualifications and approvals (licenses) to the nation's miners to conduct specific work within the mines. Currently, Social Security Numbers
(SSNs)are utilized for tracking purposes within MSHA's data processing systems, in the absence of other reliable identification systems. In an effort to reduce use of SSNs both by MSHA and third parties, MSHA is changing the process to one in which miners requiring a license or benefit from MSHA will register for an “MSHA Individual Identification Number” (MIIN). This unique number will be used in place of individual SSNs for all licensing requirements within MSHA. This new process will allow MSHA to discontinue the past practice of individuals supplying their personally identifiable information to instructors, states or other entities, which in turn supply that information to MSHA. Miners needing a license or benefit from MSHA will need to register only one time to obtain their MIINs from MSHA. *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Title:* Qualification/Certification Program Request for MSHA Individual Identification Number (MIIN). *OMB Number:* 1219-0NEW. *Recordkeeping:* 3 years. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Business or other for profit. *Total Respondents:* 40,000 first year; 10,000 thereafter. *Total Responses:* 40,000 first year; 10,000 thereafter. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,332 first year; 2,083 second year; 833 thereafter. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $10,881 first year. *Total Burden Cost (operating/ maintaining):* $7,293 second year; $2,900 thereafter. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 26th day of June, 2007. David L. Meyer, Director, Office of Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E7-12671 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of petitions for modification of existing mandatory safety standards. SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification filed by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards published in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: Comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods: 1. *E-Mail: Standards-Petitions@dol.gov.* 2. *Telefax:* 1-202-693-9441. 3. *Hand-Delivery or Regular Mail:* Submit comments to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. We will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the receptionist desk on the 21st floor. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory Development Division at 202-693-9444 (Voice), *sexauer.edward@dol.gov* (E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax), or contact Barbara Barron at 202-693-9447 (Voice), *barron.barbara@dol.gov* (E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax). [These are not toll-free numbers]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that:
(1)An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
(2)that the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modifications. II. Petitions for Modification *Docket Number:* M-2007-027-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 49.2(b) (Availability of mine rescue teams). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of two mine rescue teams of three members with one alternate for either team instead of two teams of five members and one alternate for each team. The petitioner states that:
(1)The underground anthracite mine is small and cannot accommodate more than three or four miners in the working places;
(2)to use five or more rescue team members in the confined working places of the mine would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and the members of the mine rescue team;
(3)the risk of disaster is considerably reduced because the electric power does not reach beyond the bottom of the slope and coal is hauled by hand trammed cars or battery electric motor;
(4)rescue and recovery operations at other mines have utilized only one team; and
(5)the Pennsylvania Deep Mine Safety and other surrounding mines will provide assistance in an emergency. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will in no way provide less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-028-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 49.6(a)(1) &
(5)(Equipment and maintenance requirements). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of eight self-contained breathing apparatus and eight permissible cap lamps and charging rack instead of using twelve self-contained oxygen breathing apparatus and twelve permissible cap lamps and charging rack at each mine rescue station for its seven member rescue team. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would not alter, change, or reduce the ability, effectiveness or safety of the underground mine personnel. *Docket Number:* M-2007-029-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.335 (Construction of seals). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of construction of seals. The petitioner proposes to use wooden material of moderate size and weight due to the difficulty in accessing previously driven headings and breasts containing the inaccessible abandoned workings, through the use of homemade ladders. The petitioner states that to transport concrete blocks or equivalent materials manually on ladders on pitching veins will expose miners to greater hazards of falling, being struck by falling materials, or resulting in strains or sprains because of the weight of the materials. The petitioner cites low-level explosibility of anthracite coal dust and minimal potential for either an accumulation of methane in previously mined pitching veins or an ignition source in the gob area, as justification for the proposed 10 psi design. The petitioner states that the mine has not experienced measurable liberations of methane to date. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-030-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.360 (Preshift examination at fixed intervals). *Modification Request:* The petitioner proposes to:
(1)Conduct an examination and evaluation from the slope gunboat during the pre-shift examination after an air quantity reading is taken just in by the intake portal, including a visual examination of each seal for physical damage;
(2)take an additional air reading and gas test for methane and oxygen deficiency at the intake air split location(s) just off the slope in the gangway portion of the working section; and
(3)have the examiner place the date, time and his/her initials at locations where air readings and gas tests are taken prior to anyone entering the mine and properly record the results. The petitioner states that:
(1)The slope will be traveled and physically examined in its entire length on a monthly basis regardless of conditions found at the section evaluation point;
(2)the dates, times, and examiner's initials will be placed at sufficient locations throughout, and results of the examination will be recorded on the surface; and
(3)any hazards detected will be corrected prior to transporting personnel in the slope. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-031-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a)(2) (Quantity and location of firefighting equipment). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a)(2), which requires that each working section of underground coal mines producing less than 300 tons of coal per shift be provided with specified firefighting equipment and supplies. The petitioner proposes to use portable fire extinguishers only, to replace existing requirements where rock dust, water cars, and other water storage equipped with three 10 quart pails are not practical. The petitioner states that equipping its small anthracite mine with two portable fire extinguishers near the slope bottom and an additional portable fire extinguisher within 500 feet of the working face will provide equivalent fire protection. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-032-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1200(d) &
(i)(Mine map). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard which requires, in part, an accurate and up-to-date mine map with contour lines of all elevations and mines above or below. The petitioner proposes to use cross-sections instead of contour lines through the intake slope at locations of rock tunnel connections between veins, and at 1,000 foot intervals of advance from the intake slope. In addition, the petitioner proposes to limit the required mapping of the mine workings above and below to those present within 100 feet of the vein being mined, except when veins are interconnected to other veins beyond the 100-foot limit through rock tunnels. The petitioner states that contours provide no useful information due to the steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, and their presence would make portions of the map illegible. The petitioner further states that use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines has been practiced since the late 1800's and provides critical information about the spacing between veins and the proximity to other mine workings, which fluctuate considerably. Additionally, the petitioner states that the mine workings above and below are usually inactive and abandoned, therefore, are not subject to changes during the life of the mine. The petitioner states that all mapping for mines above and below are researched by its contract engineer for the presence of interconnecting rock tunnels between veins in relation to the mine and a hazard analysis is done when mapping indicates the presence of known potentially flooded workings. Petitioner asserts that when evidence indicates that prior mining was conducted on a vein above or below and research exhausts the availability of mine mapping, the vein will be considered to be mined and flooded and appropriate precautions will be taken under 30 CFR 75.388, when possible. Where potential hazards exist and mine drilling capabilities limit penetration, petitioner will drill surface boreholes to intercept the mine workings and will analyze the results prior to mining in the affected area. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-033-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1202 and 75.1202-1(a) (Temporary notations, revisions, and supplements). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standards to permit the required interval of survey to be established annually from the initial survey in lieu every 6 months. The petitioner proposes to update the mine map by hand notations on a daily basis, conduct subsequent surveys prior to commencing retreat mining, and when either a drilling program under 30 CFR 75.388 or plan for mining into accessible areas under 30 CFR 75.389 is required. The petitioner states that:
(1)Low production and slow rate of advance in anthracite mining make surveying on 6 month intervals impractical and, in most cases, annual development is frequently limited to less than 500 feet of gangway advance with associated up-pitch development;
(2)the majority of small anthracite mines are using non-mechanized, hand-loading mining methods;
(3)development above the active gangway is designed to mine into the level above at designated intervals thereby maintaining sufficient control between both surveyed gangways; and
(4)the available engineering/surveyor resources are very limited in anthracite coal fields which makes surveying on an annual basis difficult to achieve with 4 individual contractors currently available. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standards. *Docket Number:* M-2007-034-C. *Petitioner:* Chestnut Coal Company, RD 3, Box 142B, Sunbury, Pennsylvania 17801. *Mine:* No. 12 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09493), located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1400 (Hoisting equipment; general). *Modification Request:* The petitioner proposes to use the slope (gunboat) to transport persons in shafts and slopes using an increased rope strength/safety factor and secondary safety rope connection instead of using safety catches or other no less effective devices. The petitioner states that no such catch or device is available for the conditions present. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-035-C. *Petitioner:* Black Beauty Coal Company, Vermilion Grove Road, 4500 N. 1500 E. Road, Ridgefarm, Illinois 61870. *Mine:* Riola Mine Complex—Vermilion Grover Plant, MSHA I.D. No. 11-03060, located in Vermilion County, Illinois. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) (Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; design and performance requirements). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of the Getman Roadbuilder, Model RDG-1504S, serial number 6940, without front brakes as it was originally designed. The existing standard requires that service brakes on self-propelled non-permissible diesel-powered equipment act on each wheel and are designed such that a failure on one component will not result in a complete loss of braking capability. The petitioner states that:
(1)The Roadbuilder has six wheels with dual brake systems on the four rear wheels, and is designed to prevent loss of braking due to a single component failure;
(2)seventy-four percent of the machines total weight is over the four rear wheels;
(3)brakes on the rear of the Roadbuilder are sufficient to safely stop the machine;
(4)training will be provided for grader operators to lower the moldboard for additional stopping capability in emergency situations;
(5)operators will be trained to recognize the appropriate speeds to use on different roadway conditions; and
(6)operators will be trained to limit the maximum speed to ten miles per hour. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard. *Docket Number:* M-2007-036-C. *Petitioner:* KMMC, LLC,
(dba)Vision Mining, P.O. Box 99, Sebree, Kentucky 42455. *Mine:* Vision No. 9 Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 15-17044), located in Webster County, Kentucky. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1101-1(b) (Deluge water spray systems). *Modification Request:* The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of deluge-type water spray systems installed at belt conveyor drives in lieu of using blow off dust covers. The petitioner proposes to have a person who is trained in the testing procedure specific to the deluge-type water spray fire suppression systems conduct examinations and tests on a weekly basis as follows:
(1)Conduct a visual examination of each deluge-type water spray fire suppression system;
(2)conduct a functional test of each deluge-type water spray fire suppression system and observe its performance; and
(3)record the results of the examination and test in a book maintained on the surface which would be retained and made available to the authorized representative of the Secretary. The petitioner states that if any malfunction or clogged nozzle is detected as a result of the weekly examination or functional test, corrections will be made immediately. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection to all miners as would be provided by the mandatory safety standard. Dated: June 25, 2007. Jack Powasnik, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. [FR Doc. E7-12755 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054] Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators Standard (29 CFR 1926.552). The Standard is designed to protect employees who operate and work around personnel hoists. DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov,* which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0054). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Stewart Burkhammer at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Burkhammer, Directorate of Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The following section describes who uses the information collection requirements contained in the Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators Standard. Posting Requirements Paragraph (a)(2) requires that the rated load capacities, recommended operating speeds, and special hazard warnings or instructions be posted on cars and platforms. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires that operating rules for material hoists be established and posted at the operator's station of the hoist. These rules shall include signal system and allowable line speed for various loads. Paragraph (c)(10) requires that cars be provided with a capacity and data plate secured in a conspicuous place on the car or crosshead. These posting requirements are used by the operator and crew of the material and personnel hoists to determine how to use the specific machine and how much it will be able to lift as assembled in one or a number of particular configurations. If not properly used, the machine would be subject to failures, endangering the employees in the immediate vicinity. Test and Inspection and Certification Records Paragraph (c)(15) requires that a test and inspection of all functions and safety devices be made following assembly and erection of hoists. The test and inspection are to be conducted under the supervision of a competent person. A similar inspection and test is required following major alteration of an existing installation. All hoists shall be inspected and tested at three-month intervals. A certification record (the most recent) of the test and inspection is required to be kept on file, including the date the test and inspection was completed, the identification of the equipment and the signature of the person who performed the test and inspection. This certification ensures that the equipment has been tested and is in safe operating condition. Disclosure of Test and Inspection Certification Records The most recent certification record will be disclosed to a CSHO during an OSHA inspection. Disclosing the certification record to the CSHO demonstrates the employer's compliance with this provision. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators Standard (29 CFR 1926.552). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved information collection requirements. *Title:* Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators (29 CFR 1926.552). *OMB Number:* 1218-0231. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 26,547. *Frequency:* On occasion; weekly; monthly; quarterly. *Average Time per Response:* Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) for a supervisor to disclose test and inspection certification records to 30 minutes (.50 hour) for a construction worker to obtain and post information for hoists. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 30,282. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $-0-. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1)Electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
(2)by facsimile (FAX); or
(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES ). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Signed at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-12705 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052] Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)). Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard requires employers to: Inspect portable fire extinguishers annually for normal operation; record the maintenance date; retain the maintenance record for one year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less; and make the record available to an OSHA compliance officer upon request. The annual maintenance inspection ensures that portable fire extinguishers are in safe operating condition in case of a fire, while the maintenance record provides evidence to employees and Agency compliance officers that employers performed the required inspections. DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0052). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). Section 1910.157(e)(3) specifies that employers must subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance inspection and record the date of the inspection. In addition, this provision requires employers to retain the inspection record for one year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the record available to OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement assures employees and Agency compliance officers that portable fire extinguishers located in the workplace will operate normally in case of fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence of the required extinguisher inspections to OSHA compliance officers during a workplace inspection. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)). The Agency is requesting to increase its current burden hour estimate associated with this Standard from 67,500 hours to 69,019 hours for a total increase of 1,519 hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)). *OMB Number:* 1218-0238. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 138,038. *Frequency:* Annually. *Average Time per Response:* 30 minutes (.50 hour) to perform and record the required maintenance inspection. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 69,019. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $19,878,208. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1)Electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
(2)by facsimile (FAX); or
(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0052). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled Addresses ). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Signed at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-12708 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION National Science Board—Committee on Strategy and Budget; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5 and 1863(k)), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a meeting for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows: *Date and Time:* Monday, July 23, 2007, 2 p.m. *Subject Matter:* Discussion of the FY 2009 National Science Foundation Budget. *Status:* Closed. This meeting will be held by teleconference originating from the National Science Foundation, Room 1295, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site ( *http://www.nsf.gov/nsb* ) for information or schedule updates, or contact: Annette M. Dreher, National Science Board Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone:
(703)292-7000. Russell Moy, Attorney Advisor. [FR Doc. E7-12746 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Draft NRC Staff Assessment of a Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of a proposed Agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. SUMMARY: By letter dated November 9, 2006, Governor Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania requested that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) enter into an Agreement with the Commonwealth as authorized by Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act). Under the proposed Agreement, the Commission would give up, and Pennsylvania would take over, portions of the Commission's regulatory authority exercised within the Commonwealth. As required by the Act, the NRC is publishing the proposed Agreement for public comment. The NRC is also publishing the summary of an assessment by the NRC staff of the Pennsylvania regulatory program. Comments are requested on the proposed Agreement, especially its effect on public health and safety. Comments are also requested on the draft NRC staff assessment, the adequacy of the Pennsylvania program, and the Commonwealth's program staff, as discussed in this notice. The proposed Agreement would release (exempt) persons who possess or use certain radioactive materials in Pennsylvania from portions of the Commission's regulatory authority. The Act requires that the NRC publish those exemptions. Notice is hereby given that the pertinent exemptions have been previously published in the ** Federal Register ** and are codified in the Commission's regulations as 10 CFR Part 150. DATES: The comment period expires July 18, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission cannot assure consideration of comments received after the expiration date. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be submitted electronically at *nrcrep@nrc.gov.* The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)reference staff at
(800)397-4209, or
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Copies of comments received by NRC may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. Copies of the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Pennsylvania including all information and documentation submitted in support of the request, and copies of the full text of the NRC Draft Staff Assessment are also available for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room-ADAMS Accession Numbers: ML070240128, ML063400549, ML070240055, ML063330295, ML070290041, ML070290046, ML070260116, ML070260179, ML070260026, ML070260119, ML070250054, ML063400559, ML070790604, ML070790609, ML070790612, ML070790616, ML070790620, and ML070890378. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew N. Mauer, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone
(301)415-3962 or e-mail to *anm@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(Act)was added in 1959, the Commission has entered into Agreements with 34 States. The Agreement States currently regulate approximately 17,600 Agreement material licenses, while the NRC regulates approximately 4,400 licenses. Under the proposed Agreement, approximately 690 NRC licenses will transfer to Pennsylvania. The NRC periodically reviews the performance of the Agreement States to assure compliance with the provisions of Section 274. Section 274e requires that the terms of the proposed Agreement be published in the **Federal Register** for public comment once each week for four consecutive weeks. This notice is being published in fulfillment of the requirement. I. Background
(a)Section 274b of the Act provides the mechanism for a State to assume regulatory authority, from the NRC, over certain radioactive materials 1 and activities that involve use of the materials. 1 The radioactive materials, sometimes referred to as “Agreement materials,” are:
(a)byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act;
(b)byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act;
(c)byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act;
(d)source materials as defined in Section 11z. of the Act; and
(e)special nuclear materials as defined in Section 11aa. of the Act, restricted to quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. In a letter dated November 9, 2006, Governor Rendell certified that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a program for the control of radiation hazards that is adequate to protect public health and safety within Pennsylvania for the materials and activities specified in the proposed Agreement, and that the Commonwealth desires to assume regulatory responsibility for these materials and activities. Included with the letter was the text of the proposed Agreement, which is shown in Appendix A to this notice. The radioactive materials and activities (which together are usually referred to as the “categories of materials”) that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requests authority over are:
(1)The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act;
(2)The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act;
(3)The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act;
(4)The possession and use of source materials;
(5)The possession and use of special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and
(6)The regulation of the land disposal of: byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1), 11e.(3), or 11e.(4) of the Act; source; or special nuclear waste materials received from other persons.
(b)The proposed Agreement contains articles that: • Specify the materials and activities over which authority is transferred; • Specify the activities over which the Commission will retain regulatory authority; • Continue the authority of the Commission to safeguard nuclear materials and restricted data; • Commit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and NRC to exchange information as necessary to maintain coordinated and compatible programs; • Provide for the reciprocal recognition of licenses; • Provide for the suspension or termination of the Agreement; and • Specify the effective date of the proposed Agreement. The Commission reserves the option to modify the terms of the proposed Agreement in response to comments, to correct errors, and to make editorial changes. The final text of the Agreement, with the effective date, will be published after the Agreement is approved by the Commission, and signed by the NRC Chairman and the Governor of Pennsylvania.
(c)The regulatory program is authorized by law under the Radiation Protection Act (35 P.S. 7110.101-7110.703). Section 7110.201 provides the authority for the Governor to enter into an Agreement with the Commission. Pennsylvania law contains provisions for the orderly transfer of regulatory authority over affected licensees from the NRC to the Commonwealth. After the effective date of the Agreement, licenses issued by NRC would continue in effect as Pennsylvania licenses until the licenses expire or are replaced by State-issued licenses. NRC licenses transferred to Pennsylvania which contain requirements for decommissioning and express an intent to terminate the license when decommissioning has been completed under a Commission-approved decommissioning plan will continue as Pennsylvania licenses and will be terminated by Pennsylvania when the Commission-approved decommissioning plan has been completed. Pennsylvania currently regulates the users of naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) expanded the Commission's regulatory authority over byproduct materials as defined in Sections 11e.(3) and 11e.(4) of the Act, to include certain naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. On August 31, 2005, the Commission issued a time-limited waiver (70 FR 51581) of the EPAct requirements. Under the proposed Agreement, Pennsylvania would assume regulatory authority for these radioactive materials. Therefore, if the proposed Agreement is approved, the Commission would terminate the time-limited waiver in Pennsylvania coincident with the effective date of the Agreement. Also, a notification of waiver termination would be provided in the **Federal Register** for the final Agreement.
(d)The NRC draft staff assessment finds that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is adequate to protect public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC program for the regulation of Agreement materials. II. Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials The NRC staff has examined the Pennsylvania request for an Agreement with respect to the ability of the radiation control program to regulate Agreement materials. The examination was based on the Commission's policy statement “Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement,” (46 FR 7540; January 23, 1981, as amended by policy statements published at 46 FR 36969; July 16, 1981 and at 48 FR 33376; July 21, 1983), and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs
(FSME)Procedure SA-700, “Processing an Agreement.”
(a)Organization and Personnel. The Agreement materials program will be located within the existing Bureau of Radiation Protection
(BRP)of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The Bureau will be responsible for all regulatory activities related to the proposed Agreement. The educational requirements for the BRP staff members are specified in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania personnel position descriptions, and meet the NRC criteria with respect to formal education or combined education and experience requirements. All current staff members hold at least bachelor's degrees in physical or life sciences, or have a combination of education and experience at least equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Several staff members hold advanced degrees, and all have had additional training plus working experience in radiation protection. Supervisory level staff each have at least seven years working experience in radiation protection. The BRP performed and the NRC staff reviewed an analysis of the expected workload under the proposed Agreement. Based on the NRC staff review of the BRP's staff analysis, the BRP has an adequate number of staff to regulate radioactive materials under the terms of the Agreement. The BRP will employ a staff with at least the equivalent of 17.2 full-time professional/technical and administrative employees for the Agreement materials program. Pennsylvania has indicated that the BRP has an adequate number of trained and qualified staff in place. Pennsylvania has developed qualification procedures for license reviewers and inspectors which are similar to the NRC's procedures. The technical staff are working with NRC license reviewers in the NRC Region I Office and accompanying NRC staff on inspections of NRC licensees in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is also actively further supplementing their experience through direct meetings, discussions, and facility walk-downs with NRC licensees in Pennsylvania, and through self-study, in-house training, and formal training. In the course of the NRC staff's continued interactions with Pennsylvania, the NRC staff will confirm the assurances that Pennsylvania provided concerning having an adequate number of trained and qualified staff in place, based on Pennsylvania's staff needs analysis and qualification procedures. Specifically, the NRC staff will verify how BRP staff fit into the qualification process, which staff are qualified in certain areas, and the basis for the determinations.
(b)Legislation and Regulations. In conjunction with the rulemaking authority vested in the Environmental Quality Board by Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Radiation Protection Act 1984-147, PADEP has the requisite authority to promulgate regulations for protection against radiation. The law provides PADEP the authority to issue licenses, issue orders, conduct inspections, and to enforce compliance with regulations, license conditions, and orders. Licensees are required to provide access to inspectors. The NRC staff verified that Pennsylvania adopted the relevant NRC regulations in 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 70, 71, and 150 into Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection by reference. The NRC staff also verified that Pennsylvania adopted the relevant NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 61 into Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection. The NRC staff also approved an order to implement Increased Controls requirements for risk-significant radioactive materials for certain Pennsylvania licensees under the proposed Agreement. As a result of the renumbering of 10 CFR part 71 in 2004, Pennsylvania is proceeding with necessary revisions to their regulations to ensure compatibility, that will be effective by October 1, 2007. Therefore, on the proposed effective date of the Agreement, Pennsylvania will have adopted an adequate and compatible set of radiation protection regulations which apply to byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The NRC staff also verified that Pennsylvania will not attempt to enforce regulatory matters reserved to the Commission.
(c)Storage and Disposal. Pennsylvania has also adopted by reference the NRC requirements for the storage of radioactive material and for the land disposal of radioactive material as waste. The waste disposal requirements cover both the disposal of waste generated by the licensee and the disposal of waste generated by and received from other persons.
(d)Transportation of Radioactive Material. Pennsylvania has adopted the NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 by reference. Part 71 contains the requirements licensees must follow when preparing packages containing radioactive material for transport. Part 71 also contains requirements related to the licensing of packaging for use in transporting radioactive materials. Pennsylvania will not attempt to enforce portions of the regulations related to activities, such as approving packaging designs, which are reserved to NRC.
(e)Recordkeeping and Incident Reporting. Pennsylvania has adopted by reference the Sections of the NRC regulations which specify requirements for licensees to keep records, and to report incidents or accidents involving materials.
(f)Evaluation of License Applications. Pennsylvania has adopted by reference the NRC regulations that specify the requirements a person must meet to get a license to possess or use radioactive materials. Pennsylvania has also developed a licensing procedures manual, along with the accompanying regulatory guides, which are adapted from similar NRC documents and contain guidance for the program staff when evaluating license applications.
(g)Inspections and Enforcement. Pennsylvania has adopted a schedule providing for the inspection of licensees as frequently as, or more frequently than, the inspection schedule used by the NRC. The program has adopted procedures for the conduct of inspections, reporting of inspection findings, and reporting inspection results to the licensees. Pennsylvania has also adopted procedures for the enforcement of regulatory requirements, and is authorized by law to enforce the State rules using a variety of sanctions, including the imposition and collection of civil penalties, and the issuance of orders to suspend, modify or revoke licenses, or to impound materials.
(h)Regulatory Administration. Pennsylvania is bound by requirements specified in Commonwealth law for rulemaking, issuing licenses, and taking enforcement actions. The program has also adopted administrative procedures to assure fair and impartial treatment of license applicants. Pennsylvania law prescribes standards of ethical conduct for Commonwealth employees.
(i)Cooperation with Other Agencies. Pennsylvania law deems the holder of an NRC license on the effective date of the proposed Agreement to possess a like license issued by Pennsylvania. The law provides that these former NRC licenses will expire either 90 days after receipt from the radiation control program of a notice of expiration of such license or on the date of expiration specified in the NRC license, whichever is later. In the case of NRC licenses that are terminated under restricted conditions required by 10 CFR 20.1403 prior to the effective date of the proposed Agreement, Pennsylvania deems the termination to be final despite any other provisions of Commonwealth law or rule. For NRC licenses that, on the effective date of the proposed Agreement, contain a license condition indicating intent to terminate the license upon completion of a Commission approved decommissioning plan, the transferred license will be terminated by Pennsylvania under the plan so long as the licensee conforms to the approved plan. Pennsylvania also provides for “timely renewal.” This provision affords the continuance of licenses for which an application for renewal has been filed more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the license. NRC licenses transferred while in timely renewal are included under the continuation provision. The Pennsylvania Code provides exemptions from the Commonwealth's requirements for licensing of sources of radiation for NRC and U.S. Department of Energy contractors or subcontractors. The proposed Agreement commits Pennsylvania to uormulation of standards and regulatory programs for the protection against hazards of radiation, and to assure that Pennsylvania's program will continue to be compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of Agreement materials. The proposed Agreement stipulates the desirability of reciprocal recognition of licenses, and commits the Commission and Pennsylvania to use their best efforts to accord such reciprocity. III. Staff Conclusion Section 274d of the Act provides that the Commission shall enter into an agreement under Section 274b with any State if:
(a)The Governor of the State certifies that the State has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the agreement materials within the State, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for the agreement materials; and
(b)The Commission finds that the State program is in accordance with the requirements of Section 274o, and in all other respects compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of materials, and that the State program is adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Agreement, the certification by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the application for an Agreement submitted by Governor Rendell on November 9, 2006, and the supporting information provided by the staff of the Bureau of Radiation Protection of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and concludes that, except as discussed above in Section II. “Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials,”
(a)“Organization and Personnel,” of this document, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania satisfies the criteria in the Commission's policy statement “ *Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement,* ” and therefore, meets the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. The proposed Pennsylvania program to regulate Agreement materials, as comprised of statutes, regulations, and procedures, is compatible with the program of the Commission and is adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. With respect to discussion above in Section II. “Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials,”
(a)“Organization and Personnel,” once the NRC staff confirms the assurances provided by Pennsylvania concerning staff training and qualifications, the staff will be able to conclude that area is satisfied. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of June, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Janet R. Schlueter, Director, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. Appendix A—An Agreement Between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania For the Discountinuance of Certain Commission Regularoty Authority and Responsibility Within the Commonwealth Pursuant To Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended WHEREAS, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is authorized under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 *et seq.* (the Act), to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State/Commonwealth providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission within the Commonwealth under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and Section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct materials as defined in Sections 11e.(1), (3), and
(4)of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and, WHEREAS, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is authorized under the Pennsylvania Radiation Protection Act, Act of July 10, 1984, Pub.L. 688, No. 147, as amended, 35 P.S. section 7110.101 *et seq.* , to enter into this Agreement with the Commission; and, WHEREAS, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified on November 8, 2006, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth) has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials within the Commonwealth covered by this Agreement, and that the Commonwealth desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and, WHEREAS, The Commission found on [date] that the program of the Commonwealth for the regulation of the materials covered by this Agreement is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and is adequate to protect public health and safety; and, WHEREAS, The Commonwealth and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance of cooperation between the Commission and the Commonwealth in the formulation of standards for protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that Commonwealth and Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible; and, WHEREAS, The Commission and the Commonwealth recognize the desirability of the reciprocal recognition of licenses, and of the granting of limited exemptions from licensing of those materials subject to this Agreement; and, WHEREAS, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act; NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed between the Commission and the Governor of the Commonwealth acting on behalf of the Commonwealth as follows: ARTICLE I Subject to the exceptions provided in Articles II, IV, and V, the Commission shall discontinue, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the regulatory authority of the Commission in the Commonwealth under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and Section 161 of the Act with respect to the following materials: 1. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act; 2. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act; 3. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act; 4. Source materials; 5. Special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. 6. The regulation of the land disposal of all byproduct, source, and special nuclear waste materials covered by this Agreement; ARTICLE II This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to: 1. The regulation of the construction and operation of any production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility; 2. The regulation of the export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or of any production or utilization facility; 3. The regulation of the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as defined in the regulations or orders of the Commission; 4. The regulation of the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as the Commission from time to time determines by regulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof, not be disposed without a license from the Commission; 5. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices containing byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of the Commission. ARTICLE III With the exception of those activities identified in Article II.A.1 through 4, this Agreement may be amended, upon application by the Commonwealth and approval by the Commission, to include one or more of the additional activities specified in Article II, whereby the Commonwealth may then exert regulatory authority and responsibility with respect to those activities. ARTICLE IV Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission may from time to time by rule, regulation, or order, require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear material shall not transfer possession or control of such product except pursuant to a license or an exemption from licensing issued by the Commission. ARTICLE V This Agreement shall not affect the authority of the Commission under SubSection 161b or 161i of the Act to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and security, to protect restricted data, or to guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear material. ARTICLE VI The Commission will cooperate with the Commonwealth and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that Commission and Commonwealth programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. The Commonwealth agrees to cooperate with the Commission and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the Commonwealth and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the Commonwealth's program will continue to be compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of materials covered by this Agreement. The Commonwealth and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations, and to provide each other the opportunity for early and substantive contribution to the proposed changes. The Commonwealth and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of events, accidents, and licensee performance that may have generic implication or otherwise be of regulatory interest. ARTICLE VII The Commission and the Commonwealth agree that it is desirable to provide reciprocal recognition of licenses for the materials listed in Article I licensed by the other party or by any other Agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the Commonwealth agree to develop appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures by which such reciprocity will be accorded. ARTICLE VIII The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the Commonwealth, or upon request of the Governor of the Commonwealth, may terminate or suspend all or part of this agreement and reassert the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under the Act if the Commission finds that
(1)Such termination or suspension is required to protect public health and safety, or
(2)the Commonwealth has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. The Commission may also, pursuant to Section 274j of the Act, temporarily suspend all or part of this agreement if, in the judgment of the Commission, an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety and the Commonwealth has failed to take necessary steps. The Commission shall periodically review actions taken by the Commonwealth under this Agreement to ensure compliance with Section 274 of the Act which requires a Commonwealth program to be adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by this Agreement and to be compatible with the Commission's program. ARTICLE IX This Agreement shall become effective on [date], and shall remain in effect unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII. Done at [City, State] this [date] day of [month], [year]. For the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commision. Dale E. Klein, Chairman, For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Edward G. Rendell, Governor. [FR Doc. 07-3195 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 44
Traces to 44 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
29 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • Pub. L. 87-657
  • 43 CFR 426
  • 43 CFR 426.6(b)(2)
  • 43 CFR 426.9(b)
  • 43 CFR 426.7(b)(2)
  • 43 CFR 426.7
  • 43 CFR 426.10
  • Pub. L. 91-310
  • 43 CFR 426.10(a)
  • 43 CFR 428
  • 19 CFR 201
  • 19 CFR 207
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 29 CFR 2570
  • 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)
  • 17 CFR 270.10
  • 17 CFR 240.12
  • 17 CFR 240.10
  • 29 CFR 2550.404
  • 29 CFR 75
  • 30 CFR 70
  • 30 CFR 90
  • 30 CFR 44
  • 45 CFR 614
  • 10 CFR 150
  • 10 CFR 61
  • 10 CFR 71
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice; correction
Stat.Public Law 91–190
U.S.C.§ 3003
U.S.C.§ 3001
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 1675
C.F.R.§ 201.15
U.S.C.§ 207
U.S.C.§ 1677
U.S.C.§ 1675a
Pub. L.Pub. L. 91-190
Cite40 CFR 1500
Pub. L.Pub. L. 87-657
Cites 73 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.