Notices. Notice of availability for public comment

24,600 words·~112 min read·/register/2007/07/03/07-3222·

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to Section 189a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from June 7, 2007 to June 20, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33779). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* December 12, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated May 31, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed changes would revise the TMI-1 Technical Specifications

(TS)to relocate the reactor building refueling area and spent fuel storage area radiation monitor operability requirements from the TS to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and plant procedures, since these radiation monitors do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS as presented in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). To further support the proposed change, the current TMI-1 Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling Building has been reanalyzed without credit for actuation of the Fuel Handling Building ventilation exhaust filtration system on a high radiation signal from these monitors. The proposed amendment would also establish compliance with criticality accident requirements in accordance with 10 CFR 50.68(b) versus those contained in 10 CFR 70.24. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed relocation is administrative in nature and does not involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect plant operation. The associated radiation monitors provide refueling and spent fuel pool area radiation monitoring for personnel protection during fuel loading and refueling operations. The associated instrumentation is not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed event, nor are these functions assumed in the mitigation of consequences of accidents. Additionally, the associated required actions for inoperable components do not impact the initiation or mitigation of any accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The associated radiation monitors are designed to provide refueling and spent fuel pool area radiation monitoring for personnel protection during fuel loading and refueling operations. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not require any physical alteration of plant equipment, and does not change the method by which any safety related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the design function and basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not negate any existing requirement, and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by requirements that are retained, but relocated from the Technical Specifications to the UFSAR and plant procedures. Further, the proposed change to relocate current Technical Specification requirements to the UFSAR and plant procedures is consistent with regulatory guidance and previously approved changes for other stations, and is administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Brad Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* April 26, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would incorporate the administrative controls of a new Technical Specification

(TS)3.0.6, which has been approved for use as TS 3.0.5 in NUREG-1431, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants,” Revision 3.1, dated December 1, 2005. The proposed specification provides an exception of TSs 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 to allow the performance of required testing to demonstrate the operability of the equipment being returned to service or the operability of other equipment. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The incorporation of Technical Specification 3.0.6 allows restoration of equipment to service under administrative controls when it has been removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with action requirements. The potential impact of temporarily returning the equipment to service is considered to be insignificant since the equipment has been restored to a condition which is expected to provide the required safety function. As stated in GL [Generic Letter] 87-09, “It is overly conservative to assume that the systems or components are inoperable when a surveillance has not been performed because the vast majority of surveillances do in fact demonstrate that systems or components are operable.” Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Since the equipment to be restored is already out of service, the availability of the equipment has been previously considered in the evaluation of consequences of an accident. Temporarily returning the equipment to service in a state which is expected to function as required to mitigate the consequences of a previously analyzed accident will promote timely restoration of the equipment and restore the capabilities of the equipment to mitigate the consequences of any event previously analyzed. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes do not introduce a new mode of plant operation and do not involve physical modification to the plant. Operation with the inoperable equipment temporarily restored to service is not considered a new mode of operation since existing procedures and administrative controls prevent the restoration of equipment to service until it is considered capable of providing the required safety functions. Performance of the testing is considered to be a confirmatory check of that capability which demonstrates that the equipment is indeed operable in the majority of the cases. For those times when equipment which may be temporarily returned to service under administrative controls is subsequently determined to be inoperable, the resulting condition is comparable to the equipment having been determined to remain inoperable during operation, with continued operation for a specified time allowed to complete required actions. Since this condition has been previously evaluated in the development of the current Technical Specifications, the proposed changes do not create the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Temporarily returning inoperable equipment to service for the purpose of confirming operability, places the plant in a condition which has been previously evaluated and determined to be acceptable for short periods. Additionally, the equipment has been determined to be in a condition which provides the margin of safety previously determined. The performance of the surveillance/testing simply confirms the expected result and capability of the equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* May 4, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would incorporate the administrative changes to Technical Specification 6.2.1.a, “On and Offsite Organization” and 6.8.1.a, “Procedures and Programs,” which are related to the common Quality Assurance Topical Report. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature

(1)correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in the Technical Specification

(TS)Section 6.2.1.a; and

(2)removing references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the ANSI [American National Standards Institute] N 18.7 1972 from TS Section 6.8.1 .a and instead referencing the Quality Assurance Topical Report. These changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because they do not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the physical design and/or operation of the plant, nor do they affect Technical. Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature

(1)correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in the Technical Specification

(TS)Section 6.2.1.a; and

(2)removing references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the ANSI N18.7 1972 from TS Section 6.8.1.a and instead referencing the Quality Assurance Topical Report. These changes do not introduce a new mode of plant operation and do not involve physical modification to the plant. No new failure is introduced since they do not involve the addition or modification of equipment nor do they alter the design or operation of plant systems, structures or components. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature

(1)correcting the reference of the Quality Assurance Topical Report in the Technical Specification

(TS)Section 6.2.1.a; and

(2)removing references to Regulatory Guide 1.33 and specific sections of the ANSI N18.7 1972 from TS Section 6.8.1.a and instead referencing the Quality Assurance Topical Report. The operating limits and functional capabilities of the systems, structures and components are unchanged. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* May 29, 2007 Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification

(TS)requirements related to control room envelope

(CRE)habitability in accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3, using the consolidated line-item improvement process (CLIIP), by changing the action and surveillance requirements associated with the limiting condition for operation operability requirements for the CRE emergency ventilation system, and by adding a new TS administrative controls program on CRE habitability. The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated May 29, 2007. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated. The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385 *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)the applications for amendment,

(2)the amendment, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of application for amendment:* May 30, 2006, supplemented by letters dated February 27, and April 10, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Palisades Nuclear Plant Technical Specification

(TS)Section 5.5.8. The change revises the repair criteria and essentially results in the licensee's not having to inspect the lower portion of the tube within the tubesheet (since all flaws in this region are acceptable). *Date of issuance:* May 31, 2007 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 225. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20.* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : October 24, 2006 (71 FR 62310). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2007. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412, Beaver ValleyPower Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania; and Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio *Date of application for amendments:* January 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments modify technical specification requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.0.8, which is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Change Traveler No. 372, Revision 4, “Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.” *Date of issuance:* June 14, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented with 120 days of the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 279/162, 144. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR66, NPF-73, and NPF-58:* Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11389) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power Corporation, *et al.* , Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida *Date of application for amendment:* December 12, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 14, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the Technical Specification

(TS)requirements for inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.0.8. The amendment also makes an administrative change to LCO 3.0.1. *Date of issuance:* June 15, 2007. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 224. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-72:* Amendment revised the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17950). The supplement was included in the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 15, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendments:* June 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments relocate Technical Specification

(TS)3/4.3.3.2, “Movable Incore Detectors” and TS 3/4.3.3.9, “Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Oxygen Monitoring Instrumentation” to the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The amendments also revise TS 3/4.11.2.5, “Explosive Gas Mixture” to reflect the relocation of TS 3.3-13 from the TSs to the UFSAR. *Date of issuance:* June 6, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 282 and 265. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:* The amendments revised the TSs and the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65143). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendments:* August 11, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated May 7, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments relocate the instrument response time limits for the reactor trip system

(RTS)and engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) from Technical Specification

(TS)Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-5 to the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). *Date of issuance:* June 19, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 90 days. Implementation shall include the relocation of the RTS and ESFAS response times from TS Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-5 to the Salem UFSAR as described in the licensee's application dated August 11, 2006. *Amendment Nos.:* 283 and 266. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:* The amendments revised the TSs and the License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register : September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53719). The letter dated May 7, 2007, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a **Federal Register** notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)the application for amendment,

(2)the amendment to Facility Operating License, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/ requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 1 Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. 1 To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications. 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov;* or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). Duke Power Company LLC, Docket No. 50-369, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* June 7, 2007 as supplemented June 8, 2007. The supplement provided additional clarifying information that clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. *Description of amendment request:* This amendment approved a one-time extension of the allowed outage time

(AOT)for the 1A emergency diesel generator from 72 hours to a total of 10 days. *Date of issuance:* June 8, 2007. *Effective date:* As of date of issuance to be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 241 *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-9:* Amendment revised the license and the technical specifications. *Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC):* No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated June 8, 2007. *Attorney for licensee:* Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of June 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-12635 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses”; Draft Guidance Document for Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability for public comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has amended its regulations to include jurisdiction over certain radium sources, accelerator-produced radioactive materials, and certain naturally occurring radioactive material, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which was signed into law on August 8, 2005. The EPAct expanded the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 definition of byproduct material to include these radioactive materials. Subsequently, these radioactive materials were placed under NRC's regulatory authority. NRC is revising its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that includes these newly added radioactive materials. See SECY-07-0062, “Final Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” dated April 3, 2007, for information on that rulemaking. Two licensing guidance documents in the NUREG-1556 series are being revised along with these new regulations to provide guidance related to the new requirements:

(1)NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” and

(2)NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses.” A new volume in the NUREG-1556 series has also been developed to address the production of radioactive material using an accelerator. This NUREG is entitled NUREG-1556, Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator.” This notice is announcing the availability of one of these three licensing guidance documents for public comment: NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1. NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, will be available for public comment in the near future. NUREG-1556, Volume 21, was previously noticed for public comment in the **Federal Register** , on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29555). DATES: Please submit comments on NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, by August 2, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for those comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” Draft Report for Comment, is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The ADAMS Accession Number for NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, is ML071581047. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The document will also be posted on NRC's public Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/* on the “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)” Web site page, and on the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs' NARM (Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material) Toolbox Web site page at: *http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/narmtoolbox.html* under the heading of “Licensing Guidance.” A free single copy, to the extent of supply, may be requested by writing to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Reproduction and Distribution Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Printing and Graphics Branch, Washington, DC 20555-0001; facsimile: 301-415-2289; e-mail: *Distribution@nrc.gov.* Please submit comments to Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. You may also deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Federal workdays, or by e-mail to: *nrcrep@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torre Taylor, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-7900, e-mail: *tmt@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the EPAct. Among other provisions, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), placing additional byproduct material under the NRC's jurisdiction, and required the Commission to provide a regulatory framework for licensing and regulating this additional byproduct material. Specifically, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material by:

(1)Adding any discrete source of radium-226 that is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity; or any material that has been made radioactive by use of a particle accelerator and is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(3) of the AEA); and

(2)adding any discrete source of naturally occurring radioactive material, other than source material, that the Commission, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the head of any other appropriate Federal agency, determines would pose a threat similar to the threat posed by a discrete source of radium-226 to the public health and safety or the common defense and security; and is extracted or converted after extraction before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use in a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(4) of the AEA). NRC is revising its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that includes these newly added radioactive materials. See SECY-07-0062, “Final Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,” dated April 3, 2007, for information on that rulemaking. Discussion As part of the rulemaking effort to address the mandate of the EPAct, the NRC also evaluated the need to revise certain licensing guidance documents to provide necessary guidance to applicants in preparing license applications to include the use of the newly added radioactive material as byproduct material. Two NUREG-1556 documents are being revised to provide additional guidance to licensees:

(1)NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” and

(2)NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses.” Additionally, a new NUREG-1556 volume has been developed as Volume 21 to address production of radioactive material using an accelerator. This NUREG-1556, Volume 21, is entitled: “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator.” At this time, NRC is announcing the availability for public comment NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” Draft Report for Comment. Volume 9, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses,” will be available for public comment in the near future. NUREG-1556, Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator,” was previously noticed for public comment in the **Federal Register** on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29555), for a 30-day comment period. NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” provides guidance for applicants for commercial radiopharmacy licenses in preparing their license applications. Volume 13 is being revised primarily to provide additional guidance related to positron emission tomography

(PET)radiopharmaceuticals for medical use. The guidance in Section 8.7.2, “Authorized Nuclear Pharmacist,” has been updated to reflect current 10 CFR Part 35 requirements. Additionally, other minor changes are being made that are administrative in nature, such as updating the Agreement State section and updating references. Also, information related to identifying and protecting sensitive information is being updated. NRC is only requesting comments on the specific changes in this document related to the expanded definition of byproduct material and the NARM rule. The Abstract contains a brief summary of the nature of the changes that were made as well as a list of Sections in which substantial revisions were made or new guidance was provided. NRC will make corrections if any errors or editorial corrections are noted; however, any comments not related to these specific changes will be evaluated during the next routine review of the NUREG. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of June, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12856 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice of the Results of the 2006 Annual Product and Country Practices Reviews AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the disposition of the product petitions accepted for review in the 2006 GSP Annual Product Review, the results of the 2006 Country Practices Review, the results of the 2006 *De Minimis* Waiver and Redesignation Reviews, the 2006 Competitive Need Limitation

(CNL)Removals, and certain CNL Waiver Revocations. The disposition of the petitions and other results are available at: *http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html* and as published in Presidential Proclamation 8157 in the June 29, 2007, **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Room F-220, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is

(202)395-6971 and the facsimile number is

(202)395-9481. The e-mail address is *FR0618@USTR.EOP.GOV.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from beneficiary developing countries. The GSP program is authorized by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461, *et seq.* ), as amended (the “Trade Act”), and is implemented in accordance with Executive Order 11888 of November 24, 1975, as modified by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. In the 2006 Annual Product Review, the Trade Policy Staff Committee reviewed petitions to change product coverage of the GSP. The disposition of those petitions is described in List I (Decisions on CNL Waiver Petitions in the 2006 GSP Annual Review) of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review.” The disposition of petitions considered in the 2006 Country Practices Review is described in List II (“Decisions on Country Practice Petitions in the 2006 GSP Annual Review”) of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review.” In the 2006 Product Review, the GSP Subcommittee evaluated the appraised import values of each GSP-eligible article in 2006 to determine whether an article from a GSP beneficiary developing country exceeded the GSP CNLs. *De minimis* waivers were granted to certain articles that exceeded the 50 percent import share CNL, but for which the aggregate value of the imports of that article was below the 2006 *de minimis* level of $18 million. List III of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review” (Products Receiving *De Minimis* Waivers) is the list of the articles and the associated countries granted *de minimis* waivers. Additionally, certain articles from GSP-eligible countries that had previously exceeded the CNLs, but had fallen below the CNL for total annual trade in 2006 were redesignated for GSP eligibility pursuant to the 2006 review. These articles and countries are listed in List IV (Products Receiving GSP Redesignation) of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review.” Articles that exceeded one of the GSP CNLs in 2006, and that are newly excluded from GSP eligibility for a specific country, are listed in List V (Products Newly Subject to CNL Exclusions) of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review.” Certain articles for which a waiver of the application of Section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act was issued at least five years ago, but which are revoked pursuant to Section 503(d)(5) are listed in List VI (Products for which a Waiver of the Application of Section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act is Revoked) of the “Results of the 2006 GSP Annual Review.” Marideth J. Sandler, Executive Director, Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP)Program Chairman, GSP Subcommittee. [FR Doc. E7-12887 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 206(4)-2; SEC File No. 270-217; OMB Control No. 3235-0241. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Rule 206(4)-2 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 *et seq.* ) governs the custody of funds or securities of clients by Commission-registered investment advisers. Rule 206(4)-2 requires each investment adviser that has custody of client funds or securities to maintain those client funds or securities with a broker-dealer, bank or other “qualified custodian.” The rule also requires the adviser to promptly notify the clients as to the place and manner of custody, to send quarterly account statements to each client whose assets are in the adviser's custody, and to have an independent public accountant conduct an annual surprise examination of the custodied assets. If the qualified custodian sends monthly account statements directly to an adviser's clients, however, the adviser is relieved from sending its own account statements and undergoing an annual surprise examination. The rule exempts advisers from the rule with respect to clients that are registered investment companies. The rule also exempts advisers to limited partnerships and limited liability companies from the account statement delivery and annual surprise examination requirements if the limited partnerships or limited liability companies they advise are subject to annual audit by an independent public accountant. Advisory clients use this information to confirm proper handling of their accounts. The Commission's staff uses the information obtained through this collection in its enforcement, regulatory and examination programs. Without the information collected under the rule, the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs and clients would not have information valuable for monitoring an adviser's handling of their accounts. The respondents to this information collection are investment advisers registered with the Commission and have custody of clients' funds or securities. We estimate that 3352 advisers would be subject to the information collection burden under rule 206(4)-2. The number of responses under rule 206(4)-2 will vary considerably depending on the number of clients for which an adviser has custody of funds or securities. It is estimated that the average number of responses annually for each respondent would be 247.794, and the average time of .5 hour per response would remain the same. The annual aggregate burden for all respondents to the requirements of rule 206(4)-2 is estimated to be 415,303 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. Written comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(a)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;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information;

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

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: June 25, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12784 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55961; File No. SR-ISE-2007-46] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes June 26, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 12, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on two Premium Products. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and * http://www.iseoptions.com.* 5 “Premium Products” is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ISE has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the following two Premium Products: United States Natural Gas Fund (“UNG”) and United States Oil Fund (“USO”). 6 The Exchange represents that UNG and USO are eligible for options trading because they constitute “Fund Shares,” as defined by ISE Rule 502(h). 6 The United States Oil Fund, LP (“USO”) and the United States Natural Gas Fund (“UNG”) are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“ALPS”), administered by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) and Victoria Bay Asset Management (“VBAM”) is the General Partner. ALPS, BBH and VBAM have not licensed or authorized ISE to

(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on USO and UNG or

(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on USO and UNG or with making disclosures concerning options on USO and UNG under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. ALPS, BBH and VBAM do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on UNG and USO. 7 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 8 and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options. 9 Finally, the amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.37 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. Further, since options on UNG and USO are multiply-listed, the Payment for Order Flow fee shall also apply. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. 7 These fees will be charged to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2007, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule 1900). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54204 (July 25, 2006), 71 FR 43548 (August 1, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-38). 8 “Public Customer Order” is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. “Public Customer” is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(38) as a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 9 The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 11 in particular, because it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 13 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal took effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2007-46 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-46. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-46 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2007 . For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12777 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55960; File No. SR-ISE-2007-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to PrecISE Fees June 26, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 1, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend the fees for its PrecISE Trade® order entry terminals and also to delete obsolete references to CLICK fees in its Schedule of Fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.iseoptions.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the ISE's Schedule of Fees concerning fees for its proprietary PrecISE Trade® order entry terminals. “PrecISE” is the Exchange's internally-developed proprietary order-routing terminal used by Electronic Access Members (“EAMs”) to send order flow to ISE. The Exchange currently charges a monthly fee of $250 per terminal, with a $500 minimum and $1,500 maximum per EAM. 5 ISE recently updated PrecISE, enhancing it with certain new functionalities that permit, among other things, away market routing for non-ISE listed options. Certain other user-requested enhancements have also been built into the new version, including the facilitation of complex orders. In order for ISE to cover the costs of building out the enhanced version, the Exchange proposes to amend the current PrecISE fees as follows: for the first 10 users, the Exchange proposes a fee of $300 per user per month; for all subsequent users, the Exchange proposes to charge $50 per user per month. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53788 (May 11, 2006), 71 FR 28728 (May 17, 2006) (ISE-2006-19) (the “PrecISE Fee Filing”). Additionally, ISE recently decommissioned all the CLICK terminals that were at member sites. All EAMs now have PrecISE Trade terminals. In the PrecISE Fee Filing, the Exchange noted that upon completion of the phase-out of CLICK, ISE will submit a proposed rule change to the Commission pursuant to which it will remove CLICK fees from its Schedule of Fees. The Exchange thus proposes to remove all references to CLICK terminals from its Schedule of Fees. 6 6 Regarding the Session/API fee, the Exchange's proposal to delete the reference to CLICK (referred to as the “Options Trade Review Terminal”) in that item of the Schedule of Fees leaves untouched the existing flat $250 Session/API fee, which continues to be applicable to EAMs that use their own API to connect to the Exchange ( *i.e.* , EAMs that do not use PrecISE to access the Exchange). *See* Telephone conference between Samir Patel, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Richard Holley III, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated June 22, 2007. 2. Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(4) 7 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. In particular, these fees will enable the Exchange to cover its costs for providing an enhanced version of its front-end trading system. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 9 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-ISE-2007-42 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-42. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-42 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12778 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55957; File No. SR-MSRB-2007-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rule G-14, Reports of Sales or Purchases Relating to Reporting of Transactions in Certain Special Trading Situations June 26, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 13, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change consisting of an amendment to and interpretation of its Rule G-14, Reports of Sales or Purchases. The proposed rule change would:

(i)Clarify transaction reporting requirements and require use of the existing M9c0 special condition indicator on trade reports of three types of transactions arising in certain special trading situations that do not represent typical arm's-length transactions negotiated in the secondary market;

(ii)provide an end-of-day exception from real-time transaction reporting for trade reports containing the M2c0 or M9c0 special condition indicator; and

(iii)create two new special condition indicators for purposes of reporting certain inter-dealer transactions “late.” The MSRB proposes an effective date for this proposed rule change of January 2, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site ( *http://www.msrb.org* ), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The MSRB Real-Time Transaction Reporting System

(RTRS)serves the dual purposes of price transparency and market surveillance. Because a comprehensive database of transactions is needed for the surveillance function of RTRS, MSRB Rule G-14, with limited exceptions, requires dealers to report all of their purchase-sale transactions to RTRS. All reported transactions are entered into the RTRS surveillance database used by market regulators and enforcement agencies. However, not all of these reported transactions are equally useful for price transparency. To address this problem, RTRS was designed so that a dealer can code a specific transaction report with a “special condition indicator” to designate the transaction as being subject to a special condition. Depending on the special condition that is indicated, RTRS either can suppress dissemination of the transparency report to prevent publication of a potentially misleading price or take other action. Transactions Executed With Special Pricing Conditions The MSRB has identified three trading scenarios that have generated questions from dealers and users of the MSRB price transparency products. Each of the three trading scenarios described below represents a situation where the transaction executed is not a typical arm's-length transaction negotiated in the secondary market and thus may be a misleading indicator of the market value of the security. To clarify transaction reporting requirements and to prevent publication of potentially misleading prices, the proposed rule change would require dealers to report the transactions identified in the trading scenarios with the existing M9c0 3 special condition indicator. Transactions reported with this special condition indicator would be entered into the surveillance database but suppressed from price dissemination to ensure that transparency products do not include prices that might be confusing or misleading. 3 In addition to the special trading situations identified in the proposed rule change, the existing M9c0 special condition indicator, “away from market—other reason,” is required to be included on a trade report if the transaction price differs substantially from the market price for multiple reasons or for a reason not covered by another special condition indicator. Customer Repurchase Agreement Transactions Some dealers have programs allowing customers to finance municipal securities positions with repurchase agreements (“repos”). Typically, a bona fide repo consists of two transactions whereby a dealer will sell securities to a customer and agree to repurchase the securities on a future date at a pre-determined price that will produce an agreed-upon rate of return. Since both the sale and purchase transactions resulting from a customer repo do not represent a typical arm's-length transaction negotiated in the secondary market, the proposed rule change would clarify that both the sale and purchase transactions resulting from a repo would be required to be reported with the M9c0 special condition indicator. UIT-Related Transactions Dealers sponsoring Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”) or similar programs sometimes purchase securities through several transactions and deposit such securities into an “accumulation” account. After the accumulation account contains the necessary securities for the UIT, the dealer transfers the securities from the accumulation account into the UIT. Purchases of securities for an accumulation account are presumably done at market value and are required to be reported normally. The transfer of securities out of the accumulation account and into the UIT, however, does not represent a typical arm's-length transaction negotiated in the secondary market. The proposed rule change would clarify that dealers are required to report the subsequent transfer of securities from the accumulation account to the UIT with the M9c0 special condition indicator. TOB Program-Related Transactions Dealers sponsoring tender option bond programs (“TOB Programs”) for customers sometimes transfer securities previously sold to a customer into a derivative trust from which derivative products are created. If the customer sells the securities held in the derivative trust, the trust is liquidated, and the securities are reconstituted from the derivative products and transferred back to the customer. The transfer of securities into the derivative trust and the transfer of securities back to the customer upon liquidation of the trust do not represent typical arm's-length transactions negotiated in the secondary market. The proposed rule change would clarify that dealers are required to report the transfer of securities into the derivative trust and the transfer of securities back to the customer upon liquidation of the trust using the M9c0 special condition indicator. 4 4 In some cases, the transfer of securities into the derivative trust and the transfer of securities back to the customer upon liquidation of the trust do not represent purchase-sale transactions due to the terms of the trust agreement. MSRB rules on transaction reporting do not require a dealer to report the transfer of securities to RTRS that does not represent a purchase-sale transaction. Inter-Dealer Transactions Reported Late Inter-dealer transaction reporting is accomplished by both the purchasing and selling dealers submitting the trade to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's

(DTCC)automated comparison system

(RTTM)following DTCC's procedures. RTTM forwards information about the transaction to RTRS. The inter-dealer trade processing situations described below are the subject of dealer questions and currently result in dealers being charged with “late” reporting or reporting of a trade date and time that differs from the date and time of trade execution. The proposed rule change would create a new special condition indicator for each scenario, allowing dealers to report these types of transactions without receiving a late error and allowing enforcement agencies to identify these trades as reported under special circumstances. Inter-Dealer Ineligible on Trade Date Certain inter-dealer transactions are not able to be submitted to RTTM on trade date or with the accurate trade date either because all information necessary for comparison is not available or because the trade date is not a “valid” trade date in RTTM. The proposed rule change identifies two of these inter-dealer trading scenarios and prescribes a procedure for reporting such transactions using a new Mc40 special condition indicator. VRDO Ineligible on Trade Date On occasion, inter-dealer secondary market transactions are effected in variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) in which the interest rate reset date occurs between trade date and the time of settlement. Since dealers in this scenario cannot calculate accrued interest or final money on trade date, they cannot process the trade through RTTM until the interest rate reset has occurred. Reporting the trade after the interest rate reset occurs would currently result in a late trade report. The proposed rule change would require both dealers that are party to the transaction to report the transaction by the end of the day that the interest rate reset occurs, including the trade date and time that the original trade was executed. Both dealers would be required to include a new Mc40 special condition indicator that would cause RTRS not to score either dealer late. RTRS would disseminate the trade reports without a special condition indicator and the trade report would reflect the original trade date and time. Invalid RTTM Trade Dates Dealers sometimes execute inter-dealer transactions on weekends and on certain holidays that are not valid RTTM trade dates. Such trades cannot be reported to RTRS using the actual trade date if they occur on a weekend or holiday. To accomplish automated comparison and transaction reporting of such transactions, dealers are required to submit these inter-dealer transactions to RTTM no later than fifteen minutes after the start of the next RTRS Business Day and to include a trade date and time that represents the next earliest “valid” values that can be submitted. 5 Dealers also would be required to include a new Mc40 special condition indicator that would allow RTRS to identify these transactions so that enforcement agencies would be alerted to the fact that the trade reports were made under special circumstances using a special trade date and time. RTRS would disseminate the trade reports without a special condition indicator and the trade report would include the trade date and time reflecting the next earliest “valid” values that can be submitted. 5 The MSRB previously provided an example of a trade date and time that would be included on a trade report using this procedure. *See* “Reporting of Inter-Dealer Transactions That Occur Outside of RTRS Business Day Hours or on Invalid RTTM Trade Dates,” MSRB Notice 2007-12 (March 23, 2007). Resubmission of an RTTM Cancel A dealer may submit an inter-dealer trade to RTTM and find that the contra-party fails to report its side of the trade. Such “uncompared” trades are not disseminated by RTRS on price transparency products. After two days, RTTM removes the uncompared trade report from its system and the dealer originally submitting the trade must resubmit the transaction in a second attempt to obtain a comparison with its contra-party, which currently results in RTRS scoring the resubmitted trade report “late.” The proposed rule change would require the dealer that originally submitted information to RTTM to resubmit identical information about the transaction in the second attempt to compare and report the trade by the end of the day after RTTM cancels the trade. The resubmitting dealer would include a new Mc50 special condition indicator that would cause RTRS not to score the resubmitting dealer late. The indicator may only be used by a dealer resubmitting the exact same trade information for the same trade. 6 For example, the contra-party that failed to submit its side to the trade accurately, thus preventing comparison of the transaction, would not be able to use the indicator. RTRS would disseminate the trade without an indicator once RTTM compares the trade and the trade report would reflect the original trade date and time. 6 The resubmitting dealer would not be required to resubmit the same reference number or preparation time on the resubmitted transaction; however, other information about the transaction, such as price, quantity, trade date and time, would be required to be identical to information included in the original trade submission. End-of-Day Deadline for “Away From Market” Trade Reports Currently, the two special condition indicators used to identify “away from market” trade reports, M2c0 7 and M9c0, do not provide dealers with an extension to the fifteen minute transaction reporting deadline. The purpose of fifteen minute reporting is to provide real-time price transparency. “Away from market” trade reports are not included on price transparency products and are not relevant to the transparency purpose of RTRS so there is not a need to have such transactions reported to RTRS in real-time. In addition, many special condition indicator situations require manual processing by dealers or use of different trade processing systems. Therefore, the proposed rule change includes an end-of-day exception from the fifteen minute transaction reporting deadline for any transaction that correctly includes the M2c0 or M9c0 special condition indicator. 7 The M2c0 special condition indicator, “away from market—extraordinary settlement,” is used to identify transactions where the price differs from the market price because the settlement was

(a)for regular way trades, other than T+3, or

(b)for new issue trades, other than the initial settlement date of the issue. The indicator is not used for new issue, extended settlement or cash/next-day trades at the market price. 2. Statutory Basis The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 which provides that the MSRB's rules shall: 8 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency and will enhance surveillance data used by enforcement agencies. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to all brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others With the exception of the procedure for reporting inter-dealer transactions executed on invalid RTTM trade dates, on July 31, 2006 the MSRB published for comment an exposure draft of the proposed rule change 9 (“July 2006 draft procedures”). 10 While the MSRB did not request comment on use of the Mc40 special condition indicator on trade reports of inter-dealer transactions executed on invalid RTTM trade dates, this procedure was included in the proposed rule change to address a special trading situation that arose on April 6, 2007, Good Friday. 11 9 *See* MSRB Notice 2006-20 (July 31, 2006). 10 The July 2006 draft procedures also covered use of the M9c0 special condition indicator on certain transfers of securities between program dealers of an auction rate security pursuant to the instructions of an auction agent. This procedure is not included in the proposed rule change as it is still under consideration by the MSRB. 11 *See* “Reporting of Inter-Dealer Transactions That Occur Outside of RTRS Business Day Hours or on Invalid RTTM Trade Dates,” MSRB Notice 2007-12 (March 23, 2007). The MSRB received comments on the July 2006 draft procedures from the following two commentators: The Bond Market Association (“TBMA”). 12 12 TBMA has since merged with the Securities Industry Association and is now the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”). First Southwest Company (“First Southwest”) Use of “Away from Market—Other Reason” Special Condition Indicator TBMA urged that transactions identified as “away from market” not be reported to RTRS. The MSRB notes that RTRS serves the dual purposes of price transparency and market surveillance. The proposed rule change would ensure that such “away from market” transactions are entered into the surveillance database but suppressed from price dissemination. These transactions would be part of a database for the purpose of market surveillance for use by market regulators and enforcement agencies (NASD, SEC and other regulators). The proposed rule change is consistent with TBMA's statement that reporting of these “away from market” trades with a special condition indicator provides no value to transparency. Such trades are not helpful for price transparency; in fact, if these “away from market” trades were reported without a special condition indicator, the trades could be detrimental to price transparency since they may contain potentially misleading prices. 13 13 TBMA also stated that reporting certain “away from market” transactions would overstate the volume of transactions occurring in that particular security. However, by identifying the trade with the M9c0 special condition indicator, the trade would be suppressed from publication so there would be no over-reporting of volume in any published transparency product. End-of-Day Exception for “Away from Market” Trade Reports The July 2006 draft procedures proposed an end-of-day exception from real-time transaction reporting for transactions reported with an “away from market” special condition indicator. TBMA and First Southwest commented that requiring the reporting of the transactions with a special condition indicator would require special and possibly manual processing to add the indicator. The MSRB agrees with this statement and retained in the proposed rule change an end-of-day exception to the 15 minute reporting deadline for the special trading scenarios in the proposed rule change that was included in the July 2006 draft procedures. Inter-Dealer Transactions Reported “Late” TBMA supported the proposal in the July 2006 draft procedures that both dealers that are party to a transaction in a variable rate security where the interest rate reset occurs between the trade date and settlement date identify the transaction with a special condition indicator so as to cause RTRS not to score either dealer late. TBMA recommended making this indicator available for customer trades as well as inter-dealer trades. The MSRB notes that dealers are required to only provide either a dollar price or yield on customer transactions in variable rate securities; therefore dealers are able to report customer transactions in variable rate securities even if final money is not able to be calculated at the time the trade report is made. First Southwest recognized that the proposed treatment of inter-dealer variable rate transactions would remedy the late trade issue and approves of this proposal. TBMA supported the MSRB proposal that the dealer originally submitting information to RTTM not be scored late on an uncompared trade in its second attempt to compare and report the trade using a special condition indicator. Timing of Implementation MSRB recommended in the July 2006 draft procedures, and TBMA supported, that multiple RTRS system changes be accomplished on a single implementation date because it is less costly and more efficient when changes are implemented collectively. The proposed rule change includes a proposed effective date of January 2, 2008 to coincide with changes many dealers already will need to make at the end of 2007 to prepare for the expiration of the three-hour exception from real-time transaction reporting that is currently available on certain transactions in when, as and if issued securities. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The MSRB proposes that the proposed rule change become effective January 2, 2008. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-MSRB-2007-01 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2007-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2007-01 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12779 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55962; File No. SR-NASD-2007-040] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clearing Reports for Previously Executed Trades June 26, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 22, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NASD. NASD has designated the proposed rule change as “non-controversial” under section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rules 6130, 6130A, 6130C, 6130D, and 6130E to prohibit members from submitting to an NASD Facility ( *i.e.* , the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”) or a Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”)) any report (including but not limited to a report of a step-out or a reversal) associated with a previously executed trade that was not reported to the NASD Facility, except where such report reflects the offsetting “riskless” portion of a riskless principal transaction. NASD is also proposing to amend NASD Rules 4632(d), 4632A(e), 4632C(d), 4632D(e), and 4632E(e) to clarify that, where the first leg of a riskless principal transaction is reported to NASD, the second leg must also be reported to NASD; however, in such circumstance, the member is not required to report both legs of the transaction to the same NASD Facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NASD, from the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose *Proposed Changes Relating to Reports Associated With Previously Executed Trades* Currently, members can use the ADF and the NASD/Nasdaq TRF to submit non-tape reports ( *i.e.* , the transaction is not reported to the tape for publication) and clearing-only reports ( *i.e.* , the transaction is not reported to the tape but may be submitted for clearing purposes) for a variety of reasons, including to reallocate or cancel transactions previously executed and reported to the tape by an exchange. For example, Firm A buys 1000 shares of ABC security on the Nasdaq Exchange and then submits a clearing-only report to the ADF or NASD/Nasdaq TRF to allocate those shares to Firm B (referred to as a “step-out”). 5 Similarly, a “reversal” is a clearing-only entry that allows a participant to cancel the effects of a prior submission to the National Securities Clearing Corporation. 6 Such functionality is not prescribed by rule, but rather has been offered as a service to members using the ADF and Nasdaq's Automated Confirmation Transaction Service (“ACT”). 7 Such functionality is not supported by any other NASD Facility. 5 A step-out allows a member to allocate all or part of a previously executed trade to another broker-dealer. In other words, a step-out functions as a position transfer, rather than a trade; the parties are not exchanging shares and funds. The step-out function was designed and implemented to facilitate the clearing process for members involved in these types of transactions. *See, e.g., NASD Notice to Members 05-11* (February 2005) and *NASD Notice to Members 98-40* (May 1998). 6 If a participant wants to cancel a previously submitted sell trade, it would have to submit a reversal as a buy to effectively unwind the position at clearing. 7 ACT has been licensed for use for trade reporting and clearing and comparison services through the NASD/Nasdaq TRF and also serves as the mechanism for reporting trades that are automatically executed through the Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq has advised NASD that it will submit a proposed rule change proposing to allow step-outs on ACT under Nasdaq rules with respect to any trade to which a Nasdaq member is a party, regardless of where it originated. NASD believes that members' ability to submit non-tape reports should be limited across NASD Facilities for several reasons. First, where the previously executed transaction associated with a non-tape report is reported to an exchange, NASD's audit trail will not include the original transaction report. The inclusion of a non-tape report that is not related to an NASD transaction report can create confusion and impair NASD staff's ability to produce a complete and accurate audit trail. Second, certain non-tape or clearing-only reports that provide for the re-allocation or cancellation of a previously reported transaction can make it more difficult for NASD to tabulate accurately the aggregate dollar amount of its covered sales for purposes of Section 31 fees. 8 Entry of such a transactions in an NASD Facility, when the original transaction was reported and assessed a Section 31 fee by an exchange, can result in the misalignment of Section 31 fees with the appropriate market and market participants. 8 For example, as explained in *NASD Notice to Members 05-11* (February 2005), as part of the step-out function, ACT provides the ability to move the obligation to pay the transaction fee associated with the trade to the ultimate seller of the security when the trade is allocated. Thus, NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rules 6130 (relating to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF), 6130A (relating to the ADF), 6130C (relating to the NASD/NSX TRF), 6130D (relating to the NASD/BSE TRF), and 6130E (relating to the NASD/NYSE TRF) to provide that a member shall not submit to an NASD Facility any report (including but not limited to a report of a step-out or reversal) associated with a previously executed trade that was not reported to that NASD Facility. For example, a clearing-only entry for a step-out relating to a trade reported to the Nasdaq Exchange may not be submitted to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. This proposed rule language also clarifies that a member is not permitted to report a trade to an NASD Facility for submission to the National Securities Clearing Corporation for clearance and settlement purposes, if the trade was not reported to that same NASD Facility for public dissemination purposes. Thus, for example, a member may not tape report a trade to the NASD/NYSE TRF and use the NASD/Nasdaq TRF to clear that same trade. However, NASD is proposing an exception to this prohibition for reports that reflect the offsetting “riskless” portion of a riskless principal transaction. For purposes of over-the-counter trade reporting requirements applicable to equity securities, a “riskless principal” transaction is a transaction in which a member, after having received an order to buy

(sell)a security, purchases (sells) the security as principal and satisfies the original order by selling (buying) as principal at the same price (the offsetting, “riskless” leg). A riskless principal transaction can be submitted to NASD as a single trade report properly marked as riskless principal, or by submitting two separate reports:

(1)A report that is submitted to the tape to reflect the initial leg of the transaction; and

(2)a non-tape (or clearing-only) report to reflect the offsetting, “riskless” leg of the transaction. Where a member chooses to report a riskless principal transaction to NASD by submitting two separate reports, both the tape report and non-tape (or clearing-only) report must be submitted to an NASD Facility. Where the initial leg of the transaction is executed on and reported through an exchange, a tape report would not be submitted to an NASD Facility to reflect the initial leg; however, a member is permitted, but not required, to submit a non-tape (or clearing-only) report for the second leg of the transaction to an NASD Facility. NASD believes it is appropriate to continue to permit a member to submit a non-tape (or clearing-only) report for the second leg of a riskless principal transaction to an NASD Facility, even where the first leg of the transaction has been reported to the tape by an exchange, in light of the unique nature of riskless principal transactions. A riskless principal transaction is the economic equivalent of a single agency trade and therefore the second riskless principal report is suppressed from the tape to avoid double reporting and overstatement of volume, notwithstanding that, technically, it is a separate trade. In addition, the second leg, if appropriately reported pursuant to NASD rules, is not subject to Section 31 fees. Accordingly, the proposed rule language includes an express carve-out to permit a report of an offsetting second leg of a riskless principal transaction submitted to an NASD Facility in connection with a first leg executed on and reported to an exchange. The proposed rule change will ensure consistency across NASD Facilities, promote a more complete and accurate audit trail, and enable NASD to properly assess applicable transaction-related fees. As noted above, currently only the ADF and NASD/Nasdaq TRF offer the above-described functionality relating to step-outs and reversals and, thus, the proposed rule change would require a systems change only for certain members using those facilities. With respect to the other NASD Facilities, the proposed rule change would merely codify current functionality. Clarifying Changes to Riskless Principal Reporting Requirements Currently, the rules relating to NASD's TRFs require that, where the initial leg of a riskless principal transaction was reported to a TRF, the second leg must also be reported to that same TRF. 9 NASD is proposing to revise these rules to clarify that, where the first leg of a riskless principal transaction was reported to NASD, the second leg must also be reported to NASD; however, in that circumstance, the member is not required to report both legs to the same TRF. NASD believes that the current provisions are too restrictive and could have the unintended consequence of requiring members to be participants in all TRFs in order to comply with NASD rules. 10 NASD expects that, where possible, a member will report both legs of a riskless principal transaction to the same NASD Facility. NASD also is proposing conforming changes to NASD Rule 4632A(e)(1)(C)(ii) relating to the ADF. 9 *See* NASD Rules 4632(d)(3)(B), 4632C(d)(3)(B), 4632D(e)(3)(B), and 4632E(e)(3)(B). 10 For example, assume Firm A is only a participant of TRF A and it executes the first leg of a riskless principal transaction otherwise than on exchange with Firm B, which is only a participant of TRF B. Assume further that Firm B has the reporting obligation under NASD rules. The initial leg of the riskless principal transaction will be reported by Firm B to TRF B. Firm A must report the second leg of the riskless principal transaction to NASD, but because it is not a participant of TRF B, it cannot report the second leg to TRF B. The proposed changes would allow Firm A to report the second leg of the transaction to TRF A. NASD is filing the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The proposed rule change will not become operative prior to the thirtieth day after the date of filing. NASD will announce the operative date on its Web site. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will promote a more complete and accurate audit trail and enable NASD to properly assess applicable transaction-related fees. 11 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change does not:

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

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 13 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2007-040 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-040. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-040 and should be submitted on or July 24, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12782 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55958; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-45] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange Inc; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Establish New Procedures To Be Followed When Trading Halts on the Primary Market for the Underlying Security June 26, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 14, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Phlx proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1047, Trading Rotations, Halts and Suspensions concerning equity options, 1047A, Trading Rotations, Halts or Reopenings concerning index options, and OFPA G-2, Trading Rotations, Halts or Reopenings, to establish new procedures to be followed when trading halts on the primary market for the underlying security. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, *http://www.phlx.com* , and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to help Exchange options specialists and Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”) better manage risk following a trading halt on the primary market in the underlying security by permitting specialists to halt trading in the overlying option prior to receiving approval from an Options Exchange Official. Under current Exchange rules, in order to halt trading in an option, the specialist in the option must seek out and obtain prior approval from an Options Exchange Official to do so. Typically, when trading in the underlying security halts on the primary market, a period of time passes before the specialist

(a)learns of the halt on the primary market in the underlying security; and

(b)is able to obtain the necessary approval to halt trading in the overlying option. During this time period, the specialist and ROTs continue to disseminate quotations in the option and are at significant market risk due to uncertainty in the pricing of the option. The proposal would change the procedure for halting trading in equity options in the overlying option when trading is halted on the primary market in the underlying security, and in index options when trading on the primary market in underlying securities representing more than 10% of the current index value is halted. Specifically, the proposal would permit the specialist to halt trading in the option in these circumstances prior to receiving approval from an Options Exchange Official, provided that such approval is granted within five minutes following the halt of trading in the option. The Exchange believes that this should reduce the time period following a trading halt on the primary market in the underlying security before trading the overlying option is halted, thus enabling specialists to halt trading in the overlying option more expeditiously. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 4 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by enabling Exchange options specialists and ROTs to better manage their market risk. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 6 5 [FR Doc. E7-12780 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2007-0006] Early Identification and Intervention Demonstration Request for Applications; Program: Cooperative Agreements for Early Identification and Intervention Demonstrations (EIID); Program Announcement No. SSA-OPDR-07-01; Cancellation of Notice AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Cancellation of notice. SUMMARY: This notice cancels a notice that the Social Security Administration published in the **Federal Register** on January 29, 2007, requesting applications for cooperative agreement funding to support projects that will design and implement effective, replicable, and sustainable models which will increase the number of children (birth to age 5) who receive developmental screening and improve the early identification of children with developmental delays and/or disabilities. DATES: This notice is effective July 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leola Brooks, Office of Program Development and Research, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20024, *leola.brooks@ssa.gov* , phone: 202-358-6294. When sending a question, use the program announcement number (SSA-OPDR-07-01) and the date of this announcement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** notice of January 29, 2007 (72 FR 4049), we announced a funding opportunity, as follows: Early Identification and Intervention Demonstration Request for Applications; Program: Cooperative Agreements for Early Identification and Intervention Demonstrations (EIID); Program Announcement No. SSA-OPDR-07-01. We are canceling that announcement now because the goals of the cooperative agreement to design and implement developmental screening models and improve the early identification of children with delays and/or disabilities are no longer feasible due to Agency budget limitations. Dated: June 27, 2007. Manuel J. Vaz, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12773 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA 2007-0046] Protecting the Integrity of Social Security Numbers

(SSNs)AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of enhancing the efficiency of SSA's SSN Assignment Process. SUMMARY: SSA is proposing to change the way that we assign SSNs. We intend to eliminate the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN (the “area number”) by no longer allocating entire area numbers for assignment to individuals in specific States. Instead, the SSN will be randomly assigned from the remaining pool of available SSNs, and the first three digits of the SSN will no longer have any geographical significance. We believe that by changing the way we assign the SSN we will ensure that there will be a reliable supply of SSNs for years to come. Additionally, we believe that this will also help reduce opportunities for identity theft and SSN fraud and misuse. We specifically invite comments to help us determine whether this change would have any unanticipated effects on the public. DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments: By Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; by e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov* ; by telfax to

(410)966-2830; or by letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-7703. You may also deliver them to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur L. LaVeck, Social Insurance Specialist, at

(410)966-5665. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background SSA began assigning the nine-digit SSN in 1936 for the purpose of tracking workers' earnings over the course of their lifetime and to pay benefits. To date, we have assigned about 443 million of the almost one billion possible nine-digit combinations. For administrative reasons, certain number combinations will never be assigned. Since its inception in 1936, the SSN has always been comprised of the three-digit area number, followed by the two-digit group number, and ending with the four-digit serial number. SSNs assigned before 1972 were issued by local SSA field offices and the area numbers reflected the State where the application for the number was made. Since 1972, SSA has issued Social Security cards centrally, and the area number reflects the State, as determined by the ZIP code in the mailing address of the application. Over time, because of demographic shifts in the relative populations of the States, there have been more SSNs assigned in some States than originally projected, and fewer in other States. B. Replacing Geographically Based Area Numbers by Randomly Assigning the SSN from Remaining Pool of Available SSNs SSA currently has many years' worth of potential SSNs available for future assignment. However, because area numbers in the past were allocated for assignment in States based on then current demographic trends, the allocations of SSNs in some States will be exhausted more quickly than in others. As a result, given present rates of assignment and existing geographic allocations, there are fewer than 10 years' worth of SSNs currently available for assignment in several States. We believe that by randomizing the assignment of SSNs and no longer allocating them by State, SSA will promote a more efficient distribution of SSNs, and it will ensure that all States have a sufficient supply of SSNs available for assignment for many years to come. C. Randomizing the Area Number Will Help Protect Against Identity Theft As the SSN has increasingly become an identifier used by both public and private entities, instances of SSN fraud/misuse and identity theft have also increased. We believe that another benefit of ending the geographic significance associated with the SSN area number is that opportunities for SSN fraud/misuse and identity theft will be reduced. By eliminating the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN, we can help prevent someone from learning an individual's SSN by acquiring the area number of a potential victim's SSN through knowledge of the date and/or location of the SSN application, and combining it with the correct group and serial number (i.e. the last four digits of the SSN), and being able to use that SSN for illegal purposes. Dated: June 27, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. [FR Doc. E7-12831 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 5855] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form DS-156K, Nonimmigrant Fiance(e) Visa Application, OMB Control Number 1405-0096 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Nonimmigrant Fiance(e) Visa Application. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0096. • *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (CA/VO). • *Form Number:* DS-156K. • *Respondents:* Aliens applying for a nonimmigrant visa to enter the U.S. as the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 35,000. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 35,000. • *Average Hours per Response:* 1 hour. • *Total Estimated Burden:* 35,000 hours per year. • *Frequency:* Once per respondent. • *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to 30 days from July 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • *Fax:* 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Lauren Prosnik of the Office of Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E. Street, NW., L-603, Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached at

(202)663-2951. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond. *Abstract of proposed collection:* Form DS-156K is used by consular officers to determine the eligibility of an alien applicant for a non-immigrant fiancé(e) visa. *Methodology:* The DS-156K is submitted to consular posts abroad. Dated: June 7, 2007. Stephen A. Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-12861 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 5856] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-156E Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application, OMB Control Number 1405-0101 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0101. • *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (CA/VO). • *Form Number:* DS-156E. • *Respondents:* Nonimmigrant treaty trader/investor visa applicants. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 17,000. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 17,000. • *Average Hours per Response:* 4 hours. • *Total Estimated Burden:* 68,000 hours per year. • *Frequency:* Once per respondent. • *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to 30 days from July 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • *Fax:* 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents from Lauren Prosnik of the Office of Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E. Street, NW., L-603, Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached at

(202)663-2951. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond. *Abstract of proposed collection:* Form DS-156E is completed by aliens seeking nonimmigrant treaty trader/investor visas to the US. The Department will use the DS-156E to elicit information necessary to determine an applicant's visa eligibility. *Methodology:* The DS-156E is submitted to consular posts abroad. Dated: June 7, 2007. Stephen A. Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-12863 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 5858] Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services; Notice of Information Collection Under Emergency Review: U.S. Passport Demand Study Phase II; SV-2007-0021; OMB Control Number 1405-xxxx AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice of Request for Emergency OMB approval. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *Title of Information Collection:* U.S. Passport Demand Study Phase II. *Type of Request:* Emergency Review. *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, CA/PPT. *Form Number:* SV-2007-0021. *Respondents:* Current and potential future Canadian and Mexican land border crossers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Approximately 4,000 respondents. *Average Hours per Response:* 10 minutes per response. *Total Estimated Burden:* 667 hours. *Frequency:* One time. *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Emergency review and approval of this collection has been requested from OMB by July 6, 2007. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to the State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530. Fax: 202-395-6974. During the first 60 days of this emergency approval period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until 60 days from the date that this notice is published in the **Federal Register** . The agency requests written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments are being solicited to permit the agency 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract:* The purpose of this telephone survey of a representative sample of U.S. households selected from areas with the largest numbers of land border crossers, is to establish an accurate estimate of U.S. citizens who will apply for a new passport for cross-border travel (land travel between Mexico and the U.S. as well as Canada and the U.S.) over the next several years, and especially within the next six to 12 months. *Methodology:* All interviews will be collected using a state-of-the-art Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing

(CATI)system. This system allows interviewers to enter responses directly into a computer, which instantaneously feeds the information from each station to a mainframe computer. *For Additional Information:* Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Alan J. Swygert, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202-663-2647, or at *SwygertAJ@state.gov.* Dated: June 27, 2007. Ann Barrett, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Passport Services, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-12897 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5857] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “J.M.W. Turner” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “J.M.W. Turner”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about October 1, 2007, until on or about January 6, 2008, the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, from on or about February 10, 2008, until on or about May 18, 2008, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about June 25, 2008, until on or about September 21, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone:

(202)453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: June 20, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-12864 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Request Approval From the Office of Management and Budget of a New Information Collection Activity, Request for Comments; Reporting of Information Using Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve a new information collection. The FAA issues Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIBs) to alert, educate, and make recommendations to the aviation community and individual aircraft owners and operators about ways to improve the safety of a product. DATES: Please submit comments by September 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on

(202)267-9895, or by e-mail at: *Carla.Mauney@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)*Title:* Reporting of Information Using Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins. *Type of Request:* New collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-XXXX. *Forms(s):* There are no FAA forms associated with this collection. *Affected Public:* A total of 1,120 Respondents. *Frequency:* The information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 5 minutes per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 933 hours annually. *Abstract:* The FAA issues Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIBs) to alert, educate, and make recommendations to the aviation community and individual aircraft owners and operators about ways to improve the safety of a product. It contains non-regulatory information and guidance that is advisory; recommended actions or inspections; and may include a request for voluntary reporting of results from those actions/inspections. This reported information is used to help the FAA assess whether a potential unsafe condition warrants issuance of an airworthiness directive (AD). ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, Strategy and Investment Analysis Division, AIO-20, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2007. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Strategy and Investment Analysis Division, AIO-20. [FR Doc. 07-3222 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

CFR