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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-08-08 · Food and Drug Administration, HHS · Notices

Notices. Notice

53,267 words·~242 min read·/register/2007/08/08/07-3878

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

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Cooperative Agreement To Support the National Alliance for Hispanic Health; Notice of Intent To Accept and Consider a Single Source Application; Availability of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing its intent to accept and consider a single source application (RFA-FDA-07-006) for the awarding of a Cooperative Agreement to the National Alliance for Hispanic Health (the Alliance). The purpose of the agreement is to empower consumers to improve their health by providing better consumer health information; ensure that health information available to consumers is clear, informative, and effective; leverage opportunities to eliminate health disparities in subpopulations; respond to the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)“Healthy People 2010” document; and improve health literacy for Hispanic Americans. FDA anticipates providing $ 35,000.00 (direct and indirect costs) in fiscal year
(FY)2007 in support of this project. Subject to the availability of funds and successful performance, two additional years of support up to $35,000.00 per year (direct and indirect) will be available. DATES: Applications are due August 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gladys M. Bohler, Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2105, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7168, or e-mail: *gladys.melendez-bohler@fda.hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Application and Submission Information In FY 2007, all applications must be received by August 24, 2007. Applications must be received by close of business on the established receipt date. Late applications may be accepted under extreme circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Applicants not received on time will not be considered for review and will generally be returned to the applicant. Applications must be submitted electronically through grants.gov. The application must be on SF424 R&R (Research and Related Portable Document Format). Exceptions may be made in unusual circumstances and on a case by case basis. Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application forms and 424 (R&R) Application Guide for this funding opportunity through grants.gov at *http://www.grants.gov/Apply* . Please note, only the forms package directly attached to this specific funding opportunity in grants.gov can be used. If electronic submission is impossible, please contact Gladys M. Bohler, Grants Management Specialist, at 301-827-7168 or by e-mail at *gladys.melendez-bohler@fda.hhs.gov* (See **Agency Contacts** ). When submitting applications electronically, provide URL link, and identify any particular software that is required, and identify your organization contact in the event of system problems. For the grants.gov electronic application process, applicants are required to register with the Central Contractor Registration
(CCR)database. This database is a government-wide warehouse of commercial and financial information for all organizations conducting business with the Federal Government. Registration with CCR is a requirement and is consistent with the government-wide management reform to create a citizen-centered Web presence and build e-gov infrastructures in and across agencies to establish a “single face to industry.” The preferred method for completing a registration is through the World Wide Web at *http://www.ccr.gov* . This Web site provides a CCR handbook with detailed information on data you will need prior to beginning the online registration, as well as steps to walk you through the registration process. In order to access grants.gov, an applicant will be required to register with the Credential Provider. Information about this is available at *https://apply.grants.gov/OrcRegister.* (FDA has verified the Web site address, but we are not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the **Federal Register** .) II. Agency Contacts For issues regarding the administrative and financial management aspects of this notice, contact: Gladys M. Bohler by mail: Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 301-827-7168; FAX: 301-827-7101; e-mail: *gladys.melendez-bohler@fda.gov* . For issues regarding the programmatic aspects, contact: Mary C. Hitch, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of External Relations (HF-10), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 301-827-4406; FAX: 301-827-8030; e-mail: *mary.hitch@fda.hhs.gov* . Dated: August 2, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15491 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006P-0445] Determination That MIVACRON (Mivacurium Chloride) Injection Equivalent to 2 Milligrams Base/Milliliter Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)has determined that MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection equivalent to
(EQ)2 milligrams
(mg)base/milliliter
(mL)was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for mivacurium chloride injection EQ 2 mg base/mL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine F. Rogers, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug. The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162). Under § 314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug. MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL is the subject of approved NDA 20-098 held by Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Abbott). MIVACRON is a short-acting neuromuscular blocking agent indicated for inpatients and outpatients, as an adjunct to general anesthesia, to facilitate tracheal intubation and to provide skeletal muscle relaxation during surgery or mechanical ventilation. FDA approved the NDA for MIVACRON on January 22, 1992. Abbott ceased marketing MIVACRON in July 2006. Regulus Pharmaceutical Consulting, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated October 25, 2006 (Docket No. 2006P-0445/CP1), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the agency determine, as described in § 314.161, whether MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that MIVACRON was withdrawn from sale as a result of safety or effectiveness concerns. We have reviewed our records and determined that Abbott's MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for adverse event reports and have determined that this product was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition and reviewing its records, FDA has determined that, for the reasons outlined in this notice, Abbott's MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will list MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to MIVACRON (mivacurium chloride) injection EQ 2 mg base/mL may be approved by the agency as long as they meet all relevant legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling. Dated: July 30, 2007. Randall W. Lutter, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15488 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006P-0520] Determination That Methotrexate Injection, USP, Preservative Free, Equivalent to 500 Milligrams Base/20 Milliliters (25 Milligrams/Milliliter), Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)has determined that methotrexate injection, USP, preservative free, equivalent to (Eq.) 500 milligrams
(mg)base/20 milliliters
(mL)(25 mg/mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Cohen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is typically a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug. The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162). Under 21 CFR 314.161(a)(1), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug. Methotrexate injection, USP, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), is the subject of approved NDA 11-719 currently held by Mayne Pharma USA (Mayne). Although NDA 11-719 was originally approved in 1959, this formulation and dosage was approved in April 2005 (S-108). Methotrexate is an antifolate cytotoxic drug used in the treatment of a variety of malignancies, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, osteosarcoma, advanced metastatic breast cancer, and others. It is also used to treat some inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. To date, Mayne has not marketed methotrexate injection, USP, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL). At the request of the sponsor, the product was moved to the discontinued section of the Orange Book in June 2005. In previous instances (see, e.g., the **Federal Register** document of December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79640), addressing a relisting request for Diazepam Autoinjector), the agency has determined that, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale. SICOR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated December 15, 2006 (Docket No. 2006P-0520/CP1), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the agency determine whether methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. FDA has independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events and has found no information that would indicate this product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition and reviewing agency records, FDA has determined that, for the reasons outlined in this document, methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to methotrexate injection, preservative free, Eq. 500 mg base/20 mL (25 mg/mL), may be approved by the agency as long as they meet all relevant legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling. Dated: July 30, 2007. Randall W. Lutter, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15490 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2002D-0081] Guidance for Industry: Adequate and Appropriate Donor Screening Tests for Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Assays Used to Test Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components, Including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Adequate and Appropriate Donor Screening Tests for Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Assays Used to Test Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components, Including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes” dated July 2007. The guidance document provides recommendations to manufacturers of HBsAg assays that are intended to test donors of Whole Blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, and to establishments using an HBsAg assay. Topics include recommendations on minimum sensitivity standards for HBsAg assays. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: A Modified Lot-Release Specification for Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Assays Used to Test Blood, Blood Components, and Source Plasma Donations” dated April 2002. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph L. Okrasinski, Jr., Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Adequate and Appropriate Donor Screening Tests for Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Assays Used to Test Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components, Including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes” dated July 2007. The guidance document provides recommendations to manufacturers of HBsAg assays that are approved donor screening tests intended to screen donors of Whole Blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes for Hepatitis B, and to establishments using an HBsAg assay (See § 610.40(b) (21 CFR 610.40(b)). The document represents FDA's current thinking on minimum sensitivity for such HBsAg assays as they relate to donor testing “to reduce adequately and appropriately the risk of transmission of communicable disease” under § 610.40(b). Under 21 CFR 610.44, the manufacturers of HBsAg assays used to test donations must verify acceptable sensitivity and specificity of such kits by testing the kit-lots using an FDA reference panel. This guidance document recommends that all HBsAg detection assays used to test donors of Whole Blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, have a lower limit of detection standard of 0.5ng HBsAg/mL or less. In the **Federal Register** of April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17704), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: A Modified Lot-Release Specification for Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Assays Used to Test Blood, Blood Components, and Source Plasma Donations.” FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance, and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The recommended implementation date for the recommendations in this guidance is January 31, 2008. This guidance document finalizes the draft guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry: A Modified Lot-Release Specification for Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Assays Used to Test Blood, Blood Components, and Source Plasma Donations” dated April 2002. The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the Division of Dockets Management written or electronic comments (see ADDRESSES ) regarding the guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: August 2, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15472 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2001D-0286] Guidance for Industry: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: In Vitro Human Immunodeficiency Virus Drug Resistance Genotype Assay; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: In Vitro HIV Drug Resistance Genotype Assay,” dated August 2007. The guidance document provides a means by which in vitro human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV)drug resistance genotype assays may comply with special controls for class II devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a final rule classifying the in vitro HIV drug resistance genotype assay into class II (special controls). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Premarket Notifications [510(k)s] for In Vitro HIV Drug Resistance Genotype Assays: Special Controls” dated August 2001. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathaniel L. Geary, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: In Vitro HIV Drug Resistance Genotype Assay,” dated August 2007. This guidance document was developed as a special control to support classification of the in vitro HIV drug resistance genotype assay from class III to class II (special controls). Also, it is intended for use in detecting HIV genomic mutations that confer resistance to specific antiretroviral drugs as an aid in monitoring and treating HIV infection. In the **Federal Register** of August 29, 2001 (66 FR 45682), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Premarket Notifications [510(k)s] for In Vitro HIV Drug Resistance Genotype Assays: Special Controls” dated August 2001. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Premarket Notifications [510(k)s] for In Vitro HIV Drug Resistance Genotype Assays: Special Controls” dated August 2001. II. Significance of the Guidance The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E (regulations governing premarket notification submissions) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120. IV. Comments Interested persons may, at any time, submit written or electronic comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) regarding this guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: August 2, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-15477 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed revised information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the continued use of FEMA Form 95-22, Application for Admission, that is used to select participants for the U.S. Fire Administration
(USFA)Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 93-498, the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, created the National Fire Academy
(NFA)which provides for courses and programs to train fire service personnel. Since 1985 USFA/NFA has sponsored and offered the EFOP, a professional development program for senior and executive level fire officers. The standard application form (FEMA Form 75-5, approved under OMB No. 1660-0005), used for all USFA/NFA courses, does not provide the sufficient information to select the most qualified applicants for the program. FEMA Form 95-22 will require a brief essay for questions specific to EFOP functions. Collection of Information *Title:* National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program Application Form. *Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *OMB Number:* 1660-0021. *Form Numbers:* FEMA Form 95-22, Application for Admission. *Abstract:* The EFOP annually receives more applications from qualified applicants than there are program slots available. Additional information is required to objectively evaluate the applicant's writing capability, professional accomplishments, and analytical ability. This information along with supporting documentation are used to select the most qualified participants for the EFOP. *Affected Public:* Individuals and households, and State, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 800 hours. Annual Hour Burden Data collection activity/instrument No. of respondents Frequency of responses Hour burden per response Annual responses Total annual burden hours
(D)= (A×B) (C×D) FEMA Form 95-22 400 1 1 400 400 Additional Documentation: Letter of Intent, Resume, Letter of Recommendation, Diploma Photocopy, Organizational Chart 400 1 1 400 400 Total 400 800 *Estimated Cost:* Therefore; the estimated cost to respondents using wage rate categories is estimated to be $55,616.00 and the cost for postage and mailing to respondents is estimated to be $1,960.00 annually. The annual cost to respondents is estimated to total $57,576.00. The annual cost to the government for spending time reviewing FEMA Form 95-22 and additional documentation is estimated to be $1,836.00. *Comments:* Written comments are solicited to
(a)evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief, Records Management and Privacy, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C. Street, SW., Room 609, Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Chuck Burkell,
(301)447-1072 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Branch for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number
(202)646-3347 or e-mail address: *FEMA-Information-Collections@dhs.gov* . Dated: July 31, 2007. John A. Sharetts-Sullivan, Director, Office of Records Management, Office of Management Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-15430 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-17-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning the Mission Assignment
(MA)form that is used to record requests for Federal assistance by State and Federal entities to FEMA, and the Action Request
(AR)form which is used to request Federal assistance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MA form is necessary to support the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 *et seq.* , and its implementing regulations in 44 CFR part 206. Specifically, 44 CFR 206.7 provides for FEMA to issue mission assignments for disaster work performed by other Federal agencies. A written request for Federal assistance may be submitted on an Action Request form (AR). The AR form is the working document requesting federal assistance. The mission assignments are directives provided by FEMA to another agency to perform specific work in disaster operations on a reimbursable basis and are defined in 44 CFR 206.2(a)(18). The MA form is used to record a request for Federal assistance by States and Federal entities to FEMA, and may become the official FEMA obligating document when a mission assignment to another Federal agency results from the request. The MA form contains information that is used by FEMA management to evaluate requests for assistance from States, other Federal agencies and internal FEMA organizations. The requirement that requests for assistance to be made in writing and approved by the requesting State can be found in 44 CFR 206.8. Requirements for program and finance officials to sign for the approval of funds from the President's Disaster Relief Fund are found in standard Federal financial regulations regarding financial operations and separation of duties. Collection of Information *Title:* Request for Federal Assistance Form—How to Process Mission Assignments in Federal Disaster Operations. *Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *OMB Number:* 1660-0047. *Form Numbers:* FEMA Form 90-129, Mission Assignment (MA), and FEMA Form 90-136, Action Request (AR). *Abstract:* The MA form is used to record a request for Federal assistance by States and Federal entities to FEMA, and may become the official FEMA obligating document if a mission assignment to another Federal agency results from the request. Mission assignments are directives provided by FEMA to another agency to perform specific work in disaster operations, on a reimbursable basis and are defined in the 44 CFR 206.2(a)(18) and to record Federal approving signatures. A written request for Federal assistance may be submitted on an Action Request
(AR)form. The AR form is the working document requesting Federal assistance. *Affected Public:* State, local or tribal governments and Federal Government. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,739 hours. Data collection activity/instrument No. of respondents Frequency of responses *Number of responses × 35 disasters per year Hour burden per response Annual responses Total annual burden hours A B C D = A × B E = C × D FEMA Form 90-129, Mission Assignment Form 56 *35 × 2 = 70 3 minutes (0.05) 3,920 196 FEMA Form 90-136, Action Request Form 56 *35 × 1 = 35 20 minutes (0.33) 1,960 647 Training 56 1 8 hours 448 896 Total 8 hours 23 minutes 6,328 1,739 *Estimated Cost:* Cost to respondent is estimated to be approximately $61,195.41 annually. *Comments:* Written comments are solicited to
(a)evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief, Records Management and Privacy, Office of Management Directorate, Information Technology Services Division, Information Resources Management Branch, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, 500 C. Street, SW., Room 609, Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Power, Branch Chief, Operations Branch at 202-646-7596 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Branch for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number
(202)646-3347 or e-mail at *FEMA-Information-collections@dhs.gov* . Dated: July 31, 2007. John A. Sharetts-Sullivan, Chief, Records Management and Privacy, Office of Management Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-15440 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1708-DR] Missouri; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1708-DR), dated June 11, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 11, 2007. Clinton County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15423 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1711-DR] Kansas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1711-DR), dated July 2, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 2, 2007. Edwards and Pawnee Counties for Individual Assistance. Harper County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance). (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15447 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1711-DR] Kansas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1711-DR), dated July 2, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective July 25, 2007. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15473 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1714-DR] Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-1714-DR), dated July 24, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 24, 2007, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of May 28 to June 2, 2007, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Nebraska. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lee H. Rosenberg, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Nebraska to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Buffalo, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Greeley, Hayes, Hitchcock, Howard, Kearney, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Madison, Valley, and Wheeler Counties for Public Assistance. All counties within the State of Nebraska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15469 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1712-DR] Oklahoma; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1712-DR), dated July 7, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective July 25, 2007. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15466 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1712-DR] Oklahoma; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1712-DR), dated July 7, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 7, 2007. Nowata County for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program (already designated for Individual Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15468 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1709-DR] Texas; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-1709-DR), dated June 29, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 29, 2007. Cherokee, Runnels, Smith, and Travis Counties for Individual Assistance. Brown, Comanche, Hamilton, and Llano Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance.) Hunt, Kaufman, Lamar, McCulloch, Menard, and Stephens Counties for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance. Victoria and Williamson Counties for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-15449 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Printer Cartridges AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of final determination. SUMMARY: This document provides notice that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain printer cartridges which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. CBP has concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the operations performed at the United States facility do not result in a substantial transformation of the goods. Therefore, the goods will not be considered to be products of the United States. DATES: The final determination was issued on August 2, 2007. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within 30 days of August 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry O'Brien, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade (202-572-8792). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on August 2, 2007, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain printer cartridges which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, in HQ H009107, was issued at the request of Nukote International, Inc. under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the operations performed at the United States facility do not result in a substantial transformation of the goods. Therefore, the goods will not be considered to be products of the United States. Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the **Federal Register** within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the **Federal Register** . Dated: August 2, 2007. Sandra L. Bell, Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade. HQ H009107 August 2, 2007. MAR-2-05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H009107 GOB CATEGORY: Marking. G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP., 1735 New York Avenue NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006-5221. RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations; Country of Origin of Printer Cartridges Dear Mr. Koehl: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 2007, requesting a final determination on behalf of Nukote International, Inc. (“Nukote”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 *et seq.* ). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 *et seq.* ), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purpose of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of certain laser printer cartridge models. We note that Nukote is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination. FACTS You request a final determination with respect to three manufacturing process scenarios and resulting end products. The first scenario involves laser toner cartridges for color laser printers, including both color and monochrome (black) cartridges. The second scenario involves monochrome (black) laser toner cartridges for conventional laser printers with an electronic chip. The third scenario involves monochrome (black) laser toner cartridges for conventional laser printers without an electronic chip. You describe the first process as follows. Nukote collects empty toner cartridges from end users at collection sites in the United States and, to a substantially lesser extent, in Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and China. Nukote also purchases used printer cartridges from United States- based brokers. These used printer cartridges were originally manufactured at various locations in different countries. Nukote has no process for identifying the country of origin of the empty cartridges. Nukote then sends the cartridges to a foreign country, where they are sorted to remove units which cannot be remanufactured. This process identifies cartridge type and printer type, and removes damaged and broken parts and units that cannot be processed. The cartridges which can be remanufactured are then shipped to a different foreign facility, where Nukote has direct management and operational responsibility and where the operations performed are based on proprietary specifications developed by Nukote. At this facility, the used cartridges are split open, disassembled and separated into three sub-assemblies—the developer section, the toner hopper, and the waste hopper. The original doctor blade is cleaned and the original primary charge roller is sandblasted and recoated. The drum is removed from the waste hopper, which, along with the toner hopper, is scraped to remove plastic flash and residual foam seal material, and then blown out to remove residual toner from the original manufacturer. New foam seals are installed on the toner hopper and waste hopper units. New waste hopper drums, recovery blades and wiper blades are also installed. After being rebuilt with a clean blade, roller and gears, the developer section is temporarily assembled with a “host” toner section (the “host” hopper is used repeatedly for this test; it is not a part of an operating toner cartridge) and the rebuilt waste hopper. The temporarily-assembled unit is inserted in a printer which has been “hot-wired” to bypass the need for an electronic chip, which has not been installed. The cartridge then undergoes a test print to check that the seals do not leak and are capable of producing acceptable quality print. This mechanical test does not evaluate whether the cartridge will operate on its own in a printer. It could not do so, as the cartridge has not been charged with toner and the electronic chip has not been installed; without the chip, the cartridge is not operable, as it cannot communicate with the printer. The “host” hopper is then removed and the three main sub-assembly components (the developer section, the toner hopper, and the waste hopper) are prepared for shipment to Nukote's Rochester facility. Final assembly of the printer cartridges occurs at Nukote's Rochester, New York facility. You state that the substantial majority of the operations at this facility are performed by skilled Nukote quality control and technical operations staff, which must complete a minimum of three to four weeks of training in order to become certified to engage in this activity. These operations consist of the following:
(1)Incoming Quality Inspection. You state that the goods arrive without the electronic chip and toner that are necessary for the printer cartridge to perform any useful function.
(2)Filling and Sealing. The toner hopper is filled with new chemical toner and the hopper is sealed with a plug. The toner in the first manufacturing process scenario is either of U.S. or foreign origin.
(3)Mechanical Assembly. The waste hopper, developer section and toner hopper are assembled with screws, springs and clips.
(4)Testing. Nukote “process tests” ten percent of the units for print quality and leakage. All of this testing is performed by a Nukote quality control technician and/or quality engineer. Nukote also “life tests” one to two percent of the units. During this process, all seals, clips, blades, PCRs, and rollers are visually inspected for cleanliness and proper assembly.
(5)Inspection. One hundred percent of the units are visually inspected against a defined inspection criteria.
(6)External Cleaning. The exterior of the units is cleaned by a pneumatic air line, a toner dust cloth and a dust collection device.
(7)Installation of a Computer Chip. A custom-engineered and IP-protected chip, developed and manufactured in the United States, is manually installed in each unit. The chip enables the printer software to recognize the correct laser cartridge and permits the printer to tabulate the page count and toner volume level. The cartridge is non-functional without this chip.
(8)Advance Preparation for Shipment. A shipping protector, lot control tag and shipping seals are applied.
(9)Packaging for Shipment. The unit is placed in a shipping bag, protective endcaps are installed, an instruction sheet is added, a customer label is applied, and the unit is sealed in a customer-specific box.
(10)Skidding and Shipment. The units are placed on a skid and sent to the shipping warehouse for movement to a distribution center in Tennessee. The cost of U.S. origin components for this scenario will vary from approximately 21% to 74%, depending on whether the toner is of U.S. or foreign origin. The second process scenario involves conventional monochrome printer cartridges with computer chips. This process is substantially the same as the first process, with the following exceptions. The disassembly process at the foreign facility is slightly less complex because the cartridge itself is less complex than a chemical toner color cartridge. The toner is always of U.S. origin and is much less expensive than the toner for the color cartridge. The cost of the drum is considerably less than in the first scenario. The cost of U.S. origin components will range from approximately 69% to 76%, depending on whether certain components are of U.S. or foreign origin. As in the first scenario, a custom-engineered and IP-protected chip, developed and manufactured in the United States, is manually installed in each unit. The chip enables the printer software to recognize the correct laser cartridge and permits the printer to tabulate the page count and toner volume level. The third manufacturing process scenario is different from the second only in that there is no computer chip in the third scenario. The cost of U.S. origin components will range from approximately 60% to 68%, depending on whether certain components are of U.S. or foreign origin. As in the second scenario, the toner is always of U.S. origin. Issue What is the country of origin of the subject laser printer cartridge models for the purpose of U.S. Government procurement? Law and Analysis Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 *et seq.* , which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 *et seq.* ), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B): An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if
(i)it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or
(ii)in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed. *See also,* 19 CFR 177.22(a). In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. *Belcrest Linens* v. *United States,* 573 F. Supp. 1149 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983), *aff'd,* 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally not result in a substantial transformation. *See,* C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D. 85-25, C.S.D. 89-110, C.S.D. 89-118, C.S.D. 90-51, and C.S.D. 90-97. In C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), CBP held that for purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), the assembly of a large number of fabricated components onto a printed circuit board in a process involving a considerable amount of time and skill resulted in a substantial transformation. In that case, in excess of 50 discrete fabricated components (such as resistors, capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits, sockets, and connectors) were assembled. Whether an operation is complex and meaningful depends on the nature of the operation, including the number of components assembled, number of different operations, time, skill level required, attention to detail, quality control, the value added to the article, and the overall employment generated by the manufacturing process. In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, or use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, extent and nature of post- assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative. Nukote collects empty toner cartridges from end users at collection sites in the United States and, to a substantially lesser extent, in Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and China. Nukote also purchases used printer cartridges from United States-based brokers. These used printer cartridges were originally manufactured at various locations in different countries. The cartridges are sorted at one foreign location and are then processed at a second foreign location and subsequently in the United States. At the second foreign location, the cartridges are split open, disassembled, and separated into three sub-assemblies. Worn components of the sub-assemblies are replaced and made operational again. This work constitutes disassembly of the used cartridges, as well as certain preparation for the processing which will occur in the United States. At this point the goods are tested. It is claimed that the sub-assemblies are not functional without the chip which is later installed in the United States (at least in the two scenarios where the chip is involved). The processing which occurs at Nukote's Rochester, New York facility includes inspection, filling and sealing, mechanical assembly, testing, cleaning, installation of a computer chip, preparation and packaging for shipment, and shipment. We do not believe these operations are complex enough to result in a substantial transformation of the sub-assemblies. The sub-assemblies are essentially made functional again at the foreign facility. While the chip which makes the cartridge work (in two of the three scenarios) is inserted in the United States, we find that the bringing together of the sub-assemblies in the United States does not result in a substantial transformation of the goods. For example, these operations in the United States are not as significant as those in NY G87305, where the cartridges were completely disassembled; salvageable parts were sorted into bins, cleaned, and reconditioned; major components, including the OPC drum and toner were replaced; and other new components were added. In HQ 561232, dated April 20, 2004, CBP considered the steps necessary to create a fully functional FM tuner, including adjustments to the oscillator coil, two filter coils, and the demodulator coil, selecting and installing two resistors, and enclosing the item in a metal case. CBP held that “while these additional operations are required to create a fully functional product, and are of a certain complexity requiring technical skill, they do not change the essential character of the PCBA [printed circuit board assembly], which at this stage of production has the characteristics of the imported FM tuner but has not quite achieved full functionality.” Therefore, CBP held that there was not a second substantial transformation in the Philippines. We believe that HQ 561232 is relevant here as the imported sub-assemblies possess the characteristics of the printer cartridge but, as imported, have not achieved full functionality. Holding The operations performed at Nukote's Rochester, New York facility do not result in a substantial transformation of the cartridges. Therefore, the cartridges will not be considered to be products of the United States. Sincerely, Sandra L. Bell, Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade. [FR Doc. E7-15484 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5117-N-63] Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Assessment of FHA Lender Customer Satisfaction-Survey of Businesses AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. HUD has recently undertaken efforts to modernize programs and processes in order to maintain a strong lending position with underserved and underserved borrowers. This information collection will serve to evaluate the level of satisfaction customers have with these new initiatives. The sample will consist of 1,000 FHA originating lenders with a production level of at least 28 loans for FY 2005. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* September 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-NEW) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail: *Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone
(202)708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from HUD's Web site at *http://www5.hud.gov:63001/po/i/icbts/collectionsearch.cfm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)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;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Assessment of FHA Lender Customer Satisfaction-Survey of Businesses. *OMB Approval Number:* 2502-NEW. *Form Numbers:* None. *Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:* HUD has recently undertaken efforts to modernize programs and processes in order to maintain a strong lending position with underserved and underserved borrowers. This information collection will serve to evaluate the level of satisfaction customers have with these new initiatives. The sample will consist of 1,000 FHA originating lenders with a production level of at least 28 loans for FY 2005. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion, annually. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 668 0.81 0.25 136 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 136. *Status:* New collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: August 3, 2007. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15448 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Issuance of Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals. SUMMARY: The following permits were issued. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. Marine Mammals Permit No. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 150941 Leon E. Houser 72 FR 25328; May 4, 2007 July 6, 2007. 151316 Kevin Dahm 72 FR 25328; May 4, 2007 July 6, 2007. 151317 Anthony A. Casagrande 72 FR 25328; May 4, 2007 July 12, 2007. 152688 Daniel A. Hoffler 72 FR 31090; June 5, 2007 July 17, 2007. 152993 Casey P. Brooks 72 FR 31090; June 5, 2007 July 17, 2007. 152239 Danny Z. Donaldson 72 FR 31090; June 5, 2007 July 17, 2007. 152748 Ritchie G. Studer 72 FR 31090; June 5, 2007 July 17, 2007. Dated: July 20, 2007. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E7-15383 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-330-1430-DSG-07-0002; IDI-34902] Notice of Realty Action; Noncompetitive Lease of Public Land, Custer and Lemhi Counties, ID AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of realty action. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)has examined and determined that two parcels of public land comprising 9.6 acres, more or less, located in Custer and Lemhi Counties, Idaho are suitable for a renewable, direct (non-competitive), 20-year agricultural use lease to The Nature Conservancy
(TNC)pursuant to Section 302
(b)of The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732 (b)), and the implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2920, as amended. This action will resolve an historic encroachment occurring on public lands. The encroachment dating back to on or before 1976 was originally attributed to parties from whom TNC purchased property (adjacent to the subject parcels) in 2003. Rent for the use was determined by Department of the Interior appraisal to be BLM minimum annual lease fee of $250.00. Rent may be re-appraised annually, or at an interval not to exceed every 5 years to remain consistent with market trends. DATES: Interested parties may submit comments to the BLM Challis Field Office Manager, at the below address. Comments must be received by not later than September 24, 2007. Only written comments will be accepted. ADDRESSES: Address all written comments concerning this Notice to David Rosenkrance, BLM Challis Field Manager, 801 Blue Mountain Road, Challis, Idaho 83226-9304. Detailed information concerning this action, including but not limited to documentation related to compliance with applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, is available for review at the BLM Challis Field Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Vanek, Realty Specialist at the above address or call
(208)879-6218. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following described public land in Custer and Lemhi Counties, Idaho has been determined to be suitable for lease for the purpose of agricultural harvest (alfalfa hay). The BLM has determined that resource values will not be affected by the leasing of this parcel of public land. The proposed action complies with the BLM Challis Resource Management Plan
(RMP)(1999). Compliance can be found under: Decision Land Tenure and Access under Goal 4 (Eliminate unauthorized use of public lands). As provided in 43 CFR 2920.5-4(b), land use authorizations may be offered on a negotiated, non- competitive basis, when, in the judgment of the authorized officer, equities, such as prior use of the lands, exist; if no competitive interest exists; or, where competitive bidding would represent unfair competitive and economic disadvantage to the originator of the unique land use concept that is compatible with the public interest. Based on past use of the subject parcels in the form of alfalfa hay cultivation, it is the authorized officer's discretion to offer the proposed agricultural on a non-competitive basis. Furthermore, it is the authorized officer's decision to offer the proposed agricultural lease to *The Nature Conservancy* on a non-competitive basis because an improvement consisting of a portion of an irrigation pivot owned by TNC exists on the public land in support of hay production. Because of these points, it is the opinion of the authorized officer no competitive interests exist, or competitive bidding would represent unfair competitive and economic disadvantage to TNC. Therefore, the BLM will accept for processing, an application to be filed by *The Nature Conservancy,* or its duly qualified designee, for a non-competitive lease of the above described lands, to be used, occupied, and developed as stated above. The non-competitive bid shall not be for less than fair market value. That is to say, rental value which has been based on the fair market value of the land, is acceptable to the BLM after taking into account a current, independent appraisal of, among other considerations, the highest and best use of the lands. The BLM will estimate the costs of processing the lease application. Before the BLM begins to process the application, the lease applicant must pay the full amount of the estimated costs to the United States. If a lease is not granted, the lease applicant must pay to the United States, in addition to the estimated costs, the reasonable costs incurred by the BLM in processing the lease in excess of the estimated costs. Rent has been determined by the BLM. If and when a lease is granted, rent must be made paid annually or otherwise in advance, and periodically thereafter. If a lease is granted, the lessee shall reimburse the United States for all reasonable administrative and other costs incurred by the United States in processing the lease application and for monitoring construction, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the land and facilities authorized. The reimbursement of costs shall be in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR 2920.6. The lease application must include a reference to this notice and comply in all respects with the regulations pertaining to land use authorization applications at 43 CFR 2920.5-2 and 2920.5-5(b). If authorized, the lease would be subject to provisions of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, and all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, including but not limited to 43 CFR part 2920, and to valid existing rights. *The parcels are described as follows:* Boise Meridian T. 15 N., R. 21 E., sec. 22, (contained within) NE 1/4 NW 1/4 and NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; sec. 28, (contained within) NW 1/4 NE 1/4 . The areas described contain 9.6 acres, more or less, in Custer and Lemhi Counties. The United States (Lessor) shall reserve all leasable, locatable, and salable mineral resources and deposits in the subject parcel together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same under applicable laws and regulations. The lease, when issued, will contain a covenant requiring TNC assign in the name of the Lessor that amount of water applied to the subject parcel during the use of the subject parcel by TNC. In the event the application of water to the public land ceases, this assignment shall terminate and full water right shall revert back to the sole ownership of TNC. Comments must be received by the BLM Challis Field Manager at the address stated above, on or before the date stated above. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Idaho Falls District Manager, who may sustain, vacate or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections, or adverse comments, this proposed realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. (Authority: 43 CFR 2920.4) Joe Kraayenbrink, Idaho Falls District Manager. [FR Doc. E7-15358 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of a reinstatement of an information collection (1010-0081). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), MMS is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. The information collection request
(ICR)concerns the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 282, Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur. DATES: Submit written comments by October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. Please use the Information Collection Number 1010-0081 as an identifier in your message. • E-mail MMS at *rules.comments@mms.gov.* Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0081 in the subject line. • Fax: 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0081. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Information Collection 1010-0081” in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at
(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the regulations of the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 30 CFR 282, Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0081. *Abstract:* The Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1334 and 43 U.S.C. 1337(k)), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement regulations to grant to the qualified persons, offering the highest cash bonus on a basis of competitive bidding, leases of any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulphur. This applies to any area of the OCS not then under lease for such mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering the area for lease. This regulation governs mining operations within the OCS for minerals other than oil, gas and sulphur and establishes a comprehensive leasing and regulatory program for such minerals. These regulations have been designed to
(1)Recognize the differences between the OCS activities associated with oil, gas, and sulphur discovery and development and those associated with the discovery and development of other minerals;
(2)facilitate participation by States directly affected by OCS mining activities;
(3)provide opportunities for consultation and coordination with other OCS users and uses;
(4)balance development with environmental protection;
(5)insure a fair return to the public;
(6)preserve and maintain free enterprise competition; and
(7)encourage the development of new technology. Regulations at 30 CFR 282 implement these statutory requirements. However, there has been no activity in the OCS for minerals other than oil, gas and sulphur for many years and no information collected since we allowed the OMB approval to expire in 1991. Nevertheless, because these are regulatory requirements, the potential exists for information to be collected and we are requesting that OMB reinstate this collection of information. We use the information required by 30 CFR 282 to determine if lessees are complying with the regulations that implement the mining operations program for minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur. Specifically, MMS uses the information: • To ensure that operations for the production of minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur in the OCS are conducted in a manner that will result in orderly resource recovery, development, and the protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments. • To ensure that adequate measures will be taken during operations to prevent waste, conserve the natural resources of the OCS, and to protect the environment, human life, and correlative rights. • To determine if suspensions of activities are in the national interest, to facilitate proper development of a lease including reasonable time to develop a mine and construct its supporting facilities, or to allow for the construction or negotiation for use of transportation facilities. • To identify and evaluate the cause(s) of a hazard(s) generating a suspension, the potential damage from a hazard(s) and the measures available to mitigate the potential for damage. • For technical and environmental evaluations which provide a basis for MMS to make informed decisions to approve, disapprove, or require modification of the proposed activities. We protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and 30 CFR 282.5, 282.6, and 282.7 and applicable sections of 30 CFR parts 280 and 281. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory. *Frequency:* Monthly; on occasion. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* As there are no active respondents, we estimated the potential annual number of respondents to be one. Respondents are OCS lessees. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The previous OMB inventory included 201 annual burden hours for the collection of information. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden. Citation 30 CFR 282 Reporting requirement Hour burden Subpart A—General 4(b); 12(b)(2)(ii); 12(f)(l), (2); 13(d), (e)(2); 21; 22; 25; 26; 28 Submit delineation plan, including environmental information, contingency plan, monitoring program, and various requests for approval referred to throughout; submit modifications 40 4(c); 12(c)(2)(ii); 12(f)(l), (2); 13(d), (e)(2); 21; 23; 25; 26; 28 Submit testing delineation plan, including environmental information, contingency plan, monitoring program, and various requests for approval referred to throughout; submit modifications 40 4(d); 12(d)(2)(ii); 12(f)(1), (2); 13(d), (e)(2); 21; 24; 25; 26; 28 Submit mining delineation plan, including environmental information, contingency plan, monitoring program, and various requests for approval referred to throughout; submit modifications 40 5 Request non-disclosure of G&G info 10 Subpart B—Jurisdiction and Responsibilities of Director 11(c); 12(c) Apply for right-of-use and easement 30 11(d); 12(d) Request consolidation of two or more OCS mineral leases or portions 1 12(f)(1), (h); 20(g),
(h)Request approval of operations or departure from operating requirements. (Burden included with applicable operation) 0 13(b), (f)(2); 31 Request suspension or temporary prohibition or production or operations 2 13(e)(1) Submit site-specific study plan and results. (Since this has never been done, we do not know the cost of such a study) 8 $100,000 14 Submit “green” response copy of Form MMS-1832 indicating date violations
(INCs)corrected 1 Subpart C—Obligations and Responsibilities of Lessees 20(a), (g); 29(i) Make available all mineral resource or environmental data and information; submit reports and maintain records. (Burden included with applicable operation) 0 20(b) thru
(e)Submit designation of payor, operator, or local representative; submit changes 1 21(d) Notify MMS of preliminary activities 1 27(b) Request use of new or alternative technologies, techniques, etc 1 27(c) Notify MMS of death or serious injury; fire, exploration, or other hazardous event; submit report 1 27(d)(2) Request reimbursement for furnishing food, quarters, and transportation for MMS representatives (OCS Lands Act specifies reimbursement; no requests received in many years; minimal burden) 2 27(e) Identify vessels, platforms, structures, etc. with signs 1 27(f)(2) Log all drill holes susceptible to logging; submit copies of logs to MMS 3 27(h)(3),
(4)Mark equipment; record items lost overboard; notify MMS 1 29(a) Submit monthly report of minerals produced 1 29(b),
(c)Submit quarterly status and final report on exploration and/or testing activities 5 29(d) Submit results of environmental monitoring activities 5 29(e) Submit marked and certified maps annually or as required 1 29(f) Maintain rock, minerals, and core samples for 5 years and make available upon request 1 29(g) Maintain original data and information and navigation tapes as long as lease is in effect and make available upon request 1 29(h) Maintain hard mineral records and make available upon request 1 Subpart D—Payments 40 Submit surety or personal bond 2 Subpart E—Appeals 50; 15 File an appeal. (Burden exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c)) 0 *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* There is one non-hour cost burden associated with 282.13(e)(1), a site specific study. Since this has not been done to date, we estimated that the cost of such study would cost industry at least $100,000 to comply with the requirement. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * * ”. *Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:*
(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. *You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased:*
(i)Before October 1, 1995;
(ii)to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection;
(iii)for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or
(iv)as part of customary and usual business or private practices. We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB. *Public Comment Procedures:* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz,
(202)208-7744. Dated: August 1, 2007. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E7-15387 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-07-015] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade Commission Time and Date: August 20, 2007 at 2 p.m. Place: Room 101, 500 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202)205-2000. Status: Open to the public. Matters to be Considered: 1. Agenda for Future Meetings: None. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Preliminary)(Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 27, 2007). 5. Outstanding Action Jackets: None. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. By Order of the Commission. Issued: August 3, 2007. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. E7-15503 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request August 2, 2007. The Department of Labor has submitted the following public information collection requests
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of the ICRs, announced herein with applicable supporting documentation; including inter alia a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the *RegInfo.gov* Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-4816/ Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *John_Kraemer@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the applicable OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Hazardous Conditions Complaints. *OMB Number:* 1219-0014. *Number of Respondents:* 1,358. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 272. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Description:* In order to ensure optimum occupational safety conditions, miners or representatives of miners may submit a written or oral notification of an alleged violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 91-173) or an alleged violation of a mandatory standard contained in Title 30 of the U.S. Code of Regulations or of an imminent danger. Such notification requires MSHA to make an immediate inspection. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Ventilation Plan and Main Fan Maintenance Record. *OMB Number:* 1219-0016. *Number of Respondents:* 247. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5,942. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Description:* The information collected pursuant to 30 CFR 57.8520 is used to:
(a)Assure that each operator of an underground metal and nonmetal mine routinely plans, reviews, and updates the mine's ventilation system;
(b)insure the availability of accurate and current ventilation information; and
(c)provide MSHA with the opportunity to alert the mine operator to potential hazards. With respect to 30 CFR 57.8525, the information is maintained by the mine operator for his or her use. Ventilation personnel may use the information when called upon to solve a problem. MSHA uses the information to determine whether the fans have been adequately maintained in compliance with the standard. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans. *OMB Number:* 1219-0019. *Number of Respondents:* 65. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,300. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Description:* Plans are submitted for approval to the District Manager in whose district the mine is located. Once approved, plans are used by MSHA to determine that the equipment and methods used by the mine operator to provide a safe working environment for their employees is as stated in the approved plan. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Safety Defects; Examination, Correction and Records. *OMB Number:* 1219-0089. *Number of Respondents:* 12,557. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,223,104. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Description:* The records are used by industry management and maintenance personnel to ensure that defects are not overlooked, that repairs are made, and to monitor when and how often maintenance is performed on certain equipment, machinery, and tools. Additionally, the inspection records denote any hazards that were discovered and how the hazards or unsafe conditions were abated. Federal mine inspectors use the records to ensure that unsafe conditions are identified and corrected. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners. *OMB Number:* 1219-0124. *Number of Respondents:* 165. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 623. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit. *Description:* The Mine Safety and Health Administration's standards and regulations for diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines serve to protect coal miners who work on and around diesel-powered equipment. The internal combustion engines that power diesel equipment expose miners to fire and explosion hazards in the confined environment of an underground coal mine, which contains combustible coal dust and highly explosive methane gas. Darrin A, King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15367 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request August 2, 2007. The Department of Labor has submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of the ICR, announced herein with applicable supporting documentation; including inter alia a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-4816 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the applicable OMB Control Number (see below). *The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:* • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Title:* National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. *OMB Number:* 1220-0157. *Number of Respondents:* 7,600. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 7,674. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Description:* The information obtained in this survey will be used by the Department of Labor, other government agencies, academic researchers, the news media, and the general public to understand the employment experiences and school-to-work transitions of men and women born in the years 1980 to 1984. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15368 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications
(SGA)for Community-Based Job Training Grants *Announcement Type:* Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications. *Funding Opportunity Number:* SGA/DFA PY 07-01. *Catalog of Federal Assistance Number:* 17.269. DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is October 10, 2007. Applications must be received at the address below no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Application and submission information is explained in detail in Part IV of this SGA. Virtual Prospective Applicant Conferences will be held for this grant competition on August 14 and 15, 2007 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time. Additional information and links to registration for these Virtual Prospective Applicant Conferences will be posted on ETA's Web site at *www.doleta.gov/business/Community-BasedJobTrainingGrants.cfm.* SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), announces the availability of approximately $125 million in grant funds for Community-Based Job Training Grants. Community-Based Job Training Grants will be awarded through a competitive process to support workforce training for high-growth/high-demand industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. Funds will be awarded to individual community and technical colleges, community college districts, state community college systems, and One-Stop Career Centers to support or engage in a combination of capacity building and training activities for the purpose of building the capacity of community colleges to train individuals for careers in high-growth/high-demand industries in the local and/or regional economies. This Solicitation contains an exception for rural areas and other communities that are educationally underserved due to their lack of access to community or technical colleges. In awarding Community-Based Job Training Grants, every effort will be made to fairly distribute grants across rural and urban areas and across the different geographic regions of the United States. It is anticipated that individual awards will range from $500,000 to $2 million. This Solicitation provides background information and describes the application submission requirements, outlines the process that eligible entities must use to apply for funds covered by this Solicitation, and details how grantees will be selected. ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Eric Luetkenhaus, Reference SGA/DFA PY 07-01, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210. Telefacsimile
(FAX)applications will not be accepted. Information about applying online can be found in Section IV(C) of this document. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand delivered proposals will be received at the above address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This solicitation consists of eight parts: • Part I is the funding opportunity description that includes background information on the topics of: Globalization, regional innovation, economic competitiveness, and talent development; the Employment and Training Administration's solutions-based approaches to workforce investment strategies; and a description of the critical elements of Community-Based Job Training Grants. • Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards. • Part III describes eligibility information and other grant specifications. • Part IV provides information on the application and submission process. • Part V describes the criteria against which applications will be reviewed and evaluated, and explains the proposal review process. • Part VI provides award administration information. • Part VII contains DOL agency contact information. • Part VIII lists additional resources of interest to applicants. I. Funding Opportunity Description The Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTGs) are designed to support workforce training for high-growth/high-demand industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. The primary purposes of these grants are to build the capacity of community colleges to provide training and to train workers to develop the skills required to succeed in local or regional
(i)industries and occupations that are expected to experience high-growth and
(ii)industries where demand for qualified workers is outstripping the supply. Part A provides an overview of globalization, regional innovation and economic competitiveness and ETA's transformational vision of talent development in a regional economy; Part B; describes ETA's solutions-based approaches to workforce investment strategies; and Part C describes the critical elements of CBJTGs. A. Background 1. Globalization, Regional Innovation and Economic Competitiveness The world is now witnessing one of the greatest economic transformations in history. Revolutions in technology and information have ushered in the globalization of the economic marketplace. Globalization is marked by tremendous advances in communications, travel, and trade—allowing individuals instant access to commerce from almost anywhere in the world. At the same time, American businesses now compete not only with companies across the street, but also with companies around the globe. Global competition is typically seen as a national challenge. In reality, regions are where companies, workers, researchers, entrepreneurs and governments come together to create a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. That advantage stems from the ability to transform new ideas and new knowledge into advanced, high quality products or services—in other words, to innovate. Regions that are successful in creating a competitive advantage demonstrate the ability to organize “innovation assets”—people, institutions, capital and infrastructure—to generate growth and prosperity in the region's economy. These regions are successful because they have connected three key elements: Workforce skills and lifelong learning; learning strategies, investments and entrepreneurial strategies; and regional infrastructure and economic development strategies. In the new global economy, a region's ability to develop, attract, and retain a well-educated and skilled workforce is a key factor in our nation's economic competitiveness. A region may possess a strong infrastructure and the investment resources for success, but without the talented men and women to use those elements for economic growth, they are meaningless. Talent can also drive investment and infrastructure because investment capital is smart money and will follow talent, while infrastructure can be built to support a growing economy. 2. Talent Development In the Global Economy Each year the federal government invests billions of dollars in a state and local workforce investment network to assist businesses in recruiting, training, and retaining a skilled workforce. This network is called the workforce investment system and consists of state and local workforce investment boards, state workforce agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their cooperating partners. In this 21st century globally competitive economy, it is becoming increasingly important that the workforce system act as a strategic partner in regional economic development. As the leader in regional talent development, the workforce system aligns workforce investment dollars with regional economic growth goals by focusing on workforce and lifelong learning strategies that are demanded by employers and based on an understanding of future job growth in emerging, high-growth and economically vital industries and sectors of the American economy. Through this strategic alignment, the workforce system helps to ward off and respond to economic shocks, creating more stable and rewarding employment opportunities for the workforce. In addition, the system serves as a galvanizing partner by bringing together entities that can grow talent as well as leverage that talent base in attracting industry investment to the local or regional economy. To maximize the impact of talent development activities, workforce investment boards must partner with a strong team composed of individuals and organizations necessary to transform the regional economy, including: Employers; educators at all levels, including community colleges; economic development entities; local, regional, and state government; the philanthropic community; faith-based and community organizations; research institutions; and other civic leaders with a stake in economic growth and talent development. B. Solutions-Based Approaches To Workforce Investment Strategies: A Key Component For Regional Innovation and Talent Development Within the context of these strategic partnerships, the workforce system should take a solutions-based approach to workforce development, focusing on systemic solutions that address short-term challenges while contributing to long-term talent development and economic growth. Partners should work collaboratively to:
(1)Identify the regional economy.
(2)Form the Core Leadership Group.
(3)Conduct a SWOT Analysis.
(4)Identify a Shared Regional Identity and Vision for the Regional Economy.
(5)Devise Strategies in Support of the Shared Vision.
(6)Leverage resources and implement. Please note, this process is not linear—the steps may occur and reoccur depending on regional circumstances. The goal of this process is to ensure that workforce system resources help workers get education and training that aligns with regional industry-identified needs and job opportunities, and that these needs reflect economic development priorities in the region. The Employment and Training Administration
(ETA)has modeled the role of strategic partnerships in demand-driven workforce investment through the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI). Through the HGJTI, ETA identified high-growth, high-demand industries; evaluated their skill needs; and funded local and national partnership-based demonstration projects that provide workforce solutions to ensure that individuals can gain the skills to get good jobs with career pathways in rapidly expanding or transforming industries. The foundation of the HGJTI has been partnerships between the publicly funded workforce investment system, business and industry representatives, and the continuum of education. These partnerships engage each partner in its area of strength. Industry representatives and employers define workforce challenges facing the industry and identify the competencies and skills required for the industry's workforce. Education and training providers, such as community colleges, assist in developing competency models and curricula and train new and incumbent workers. The workforce investment system compiles and analyzes local labor market information, accesses human capital (e.g. youth, unemployed, underemployed, and dislocated workers), provides funding to support training for qualified individuals, and connects trained workers to good jobs. The Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTGs) continue the work of the HGJTI by incorporating its focus on high-growth, high-demand industries and its emphasis on the role of strategic partnerships in workforce development while addressing the critical capacity constraints of community colleges. Businesses in high growth, high demand industries face increasing difficulties in finding workers with the right skills. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ninety percent of the fastest growing jobs in the United States require some level of education or training beyond high school. The accessibility and affordability of community college training, combined with the adaptability of community college curricula to changing skill needs, make community colleges a vital training resource for many U.S. workers. Furthermore, community colleges are closely connected to local and regional labor markets, making them well-positioned to prepare workers for good jobs with good wages in their regional economy. However, community college leaders and industry executives report that many community colleges are unable to meet the demand for training in their region because of critical capacity constraints. These capacity constraints occur when community colleges lack sufficient resources to support training facilities and equipment, curriculum development, faculty appointments, clinical experiences, and/or other elements that are necessary to provide either the volume or quality of training that industry requires. Despite rising application rates, the reality of current state and local budgets often prevent community colleges from funding the programs, faculty, and student services needed to be responsive to regional workforce demands. The CBJTGs build on the work of the High Growth Initiative by highlighting the critical role community colleges play as partners in a demand-driven workforce investment system, and by supporting community efforts to link training initiatives to the skill demands of local and regional employers. As a result, CBJTG activities will lead to an increased number of high-growth/high-demand firms being supported by regional workforce and education systems, and more individuals being trained and employed in high-growth/high-demand sectors. Recognizing the growing need for regional economic competitiveness in the global economy, ETA has continued to evolve its strategies for supporting strategic workforce development. In February 2006, ETA launched the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative, focusing on the role of talent development in driving regional economic competitiveness, leading to increased job growth and new opportunities for American workers. To optimize innovation and successful regional economic transformation, the WIRED framework brings together all the key players in a region to leverage their collective public and private sector assets and resources, and to devise strategies that focus on infrastructure, investment, and talent development. The WIRED strategic framework supports regions in incorporating demand-driven talent and skills development into their larger economic strategies and integrating workforce development, economic development, and education efforts into a comprehensive system that is both flexible and responsive to the needs of business and workers. More information and tools to help implement a WIRED strategic framework can be found at *www.doleta.gov/WIRED.* C. Critical Elements of Community-Based Job Training Grants It is ETA's expectation that CBJTGs will contain at least seven critical elements. These elements consist of:
(1)A focus on skill and competency needs of high-growth/high-demand industries that are Locally Defined in the Context of the Regional Economy;
(2)strategic partnerships;
(3)industry-driven capacity building and training efforts;
(4)leveraged resources;
(5)replication of successful models for broad distribution;
(6)clear and specific outcomes; and
(7)integration with regional economic and talent development strategies. These characteristics are reflected in the evaluation criteria in Part V and are described in further detail below. 1. Focus on Skill and Competency Needs of High-Growth/High-Demand Industries as Locally Defined in the Context of the Regional Economy The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220)
(WIA)emphasizes a workforce system driven by the needs of local employers. In order for America to remain competitive in the global economy, it is essential that ETA target its investments to support employers in high-growth/high-demand industries. Community colleges, Workforce Investment Boards, and One-Stop Career Centers play a vital role in this effort by understanding the workforce needs of these industries and providing training and other services to address those needs. A high-growth/high-demand industry meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1)Is projected to add substantial numbers of new jobs to the economy;
(2)has a significant impact on the economy overall;
(3)impacts the growth of other industries;
(4)is being transformed by technology and innovation requiring new skill sets for workers; or
(5)is a new and emerging business that is projected to grow. CBJTGs will support industry demand for training in local or regional high-growth/high-demand industries. Regions are typically defined as geographically contiguous areas and can include multiple counties and cities and cross state lines. A range of factors contribute to the formation of a region, including economic interdependence (such as a common industry or industries) and shared assets (such as human capital, research and development entities, educational institutions, and airports and other types of infrastructure). ETA encourages applicants to define local high-growth industries in the context of their regional economy by illustrating how the industry is aligned with and fits into the region's economic development activities. 2. Strategic Partnerships ETA believes that strategic partnerships between community colleges; the workforce investment system, including One-Stop Career Centers; business and industry; and the continuum of education, including the K-12 system, adult education, and four-year colleges and universities, need to be in place in order to implement effective demand-driven training and capacity building strategies. These strategic partnerships may have a local, regional, or statewide focus, and may include a consortium of partners or cross-industry representatives. Specific requirements for strategic partnerships are outlined in Section III(C)(1) and in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5). These strategic partnerships should focus broadly on the workforce challenges of one or more high-growth, high-demand industries and work collaboratively to identify and implement solutions to those challenges. Solutions should include, among others, strategies to increase the capacity of community colleges to educate and train more workers with industry-defined skills and competencies. Therefore, the investment in community college capacity building would be one of many strategies and solutions that evolve from the partnership. While ETA welcomes applications from newly formed strategic partnerships, applicants are advised that grant funds may not be used for partnership development. In order to maximize the long-term success of the proposed solution and to keep pace with the rapid changes in the economy and the nature of the skills and competencies necessary for work in these industries, these partnerships need to be substantial and sustained. ETA encourages partners to plan for the partnership's sustainability beyond the CBJTG investment period to enable ongoing assessment of industry workforce needs and collaborative development of solutions on a continual basis. Within the context of the broader strategic partnership and as it relates to this grant, each collaborative partner should have clearly defined roles. These roles must be verified through a letter of commitment submitted by each partner. The letter of commitment must detail the role the partner will play in the project, including specific responsibilities and resources committed, if appropriate. The exact nature of these roles may vary depending on the issue areas being addressed and the scope and nature of the activities undertaken. However, ETA expects that each collaborative partner will, at a minimum, contribute in the following ways: a. Employers must be actively engaged in the project and should participate fully in grant activities including: Defining the program strategy and goals; identifying needed skills and competencies; designing training approaches and curricula; implementing the program; contributing financial support; and, where appropriate, hiring qualified training graduates. b. Education and training providers, including K-12 (elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as career and technical high schools), adult education, community and technical colleges, four-year colleges and universities, and other training entities, are important foundational partners to ensure the project's activities are tied to the broader continuum of education in the region. These entities assist in developing and implementing industry-driven workforce education strategies in partnerships with employers including competency models, curricula, and new learning methodologies, including technology-based learning. c. The workforce investment system, which may include State and Local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their cooperating partners, as such terms are defined under the Workforce Investment Act, may play a number of roles, including: Identifying and assessing candidates for training; working collaboratively to leverage WIA investments; referring qualified candidates to the community college for enrollment in training programs; providing access to wrap-around supportive services, when appropriate; and connecting qualified training graduates to employers that have existing job openings. Additionally, the workforce investment system in general, and One-Stop Career Centers in particular, have substantive experience in tracking the outcomes of program participants. One-Stop Career Centers may coordinate, provide support, or manage the tracking of training recipients for the performance management aspect of the CBJTG. Partnerships with faith-based and community organizations, while not required, are also encouraged. These organizations may provide a variety of grant services, such as case management, mentoring, and English language acquisition, among others. Faith-based and community-based organizations can also provide comprehensive supportive services, when appropriate. 3. Industry-Driven Capacity Building and Training Efforts Under CBJTGs, community colleges, or other entities as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), must develop and implement a combination of capacity building and training activities that target skills and competencies demanded by local high-growth/high-demand industries as defined in the context of the region's economy. Applicants are not limited in the strategies and approaches they may employ to implement college capacity building and training strategies, provided the activities meet the following requirements: a. *Training.* Training activities must:
(1)Be provided by a community or technical college, except as specified in Section III(C)(5) of this Solicitation;
(2)occur within the context of workforce education that supports long-term career growth, such as an articulated career ladder/lattice; and
(3)result in college credit or other credentials that are industry-recognized and indicate a level of mastery and competence in a given field or function. Please note, when using credentials, CBJTGs must follow the definition of certificate and/or credential found in Attachment B to TEGL 17-05 on Common Measures, found at: *http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05_AttachB.pdf.* The credential awarded to participants upon completion should be based on the type of training provided through the grant and the requirements of the targeted occupation, and should be selected based on consultations with industry partners. For example: i. Customized and short-term training should result in a performance-based certification or credential. This certification may be developed jointly by employers and the community college, based on defined knowledge and skill requirements for specific high-demand occupations/functions. Performance-based certifications may also be based on industry-recognized curriculum and standards. ii. Training in information technology, allied health professions, and other fields with established professional standards and examinations should result in certification. iii. In states where licensure is required for the specific occupation targeted by the training, the credentialing requirement should be set accordingly. iv. In some instances, training provided under CBJTGs may lead to a degree after the grant program is over. In these instances, the credential required will be the college credit for each course leading to an Associate's or Applied Associate's degree. b. *Capacity Building.* CBJTG applicants are encouraged to broadly assess their capacity to meet the training needs of the targeted high-growth/high-demand industry or industries. Proposed capacity building strategies are expected to address significant barriers which impede the ability of the community college, or other entity as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), to meet local and regional industry demand for workforce training as well as increase the capacity of the college to provide training resulting in an increase in the pipeline of skilled workers ready for employment or promotion in the regional economy. These strategies should not simply address isolated deficits, but rather provide a comprehensive solution to identified capacity challenges as they relate to the industry or industries of focus. Additionally, to avoid duplication, applicants are encouraged to align and leverage their proposed capacity building activities with existing curricula, competency models and other frameworks developed by existing HGJTI and CBJT grantees. Examples of capacity building activities include, but are not limited to: i. The development or adaptation of competency models and curricula to support training; ii. The development of innovative curricula, teaching methods and instructional design to maximize the impact of the initiative in meeting the skills needs of employers; iii. Innovative strategies to ensure availability of qualified and certified instructors; iv. Procurement of equipment and simulation equipment necessary to train to industry-demanded skills; v. Support for clinical experiences required for certification or licensure; or vi. Development of technology-based distance learning curricula and programs to promote better access to education and training programs. Capacity building activities must meet two criteria:
(1)The proposed capacity building efforts must be directly linked to the specific training supported under the grant; and
(2)grantees must use their grant funds in a manner consistent with the regulations and policies governing use of funds under Section 171(d) of WIA, which broadly allows the funds to be utilized to test an array of approaches to the provision of training services and supports the development and replication of effective training strategies. Applicants are strongly encouraged to review Section 171(d) of WIA and to review allowable types of capacity building activities under federal funds. In addition, OMB Circular A-21 provides guidance to educational institutions on allowable costs. Grantees may not utilize federal funds on unallowable activities, even if those activities are written in a successful application, and any such activities will need to be removed from a grant statement of work. In their capacity building and training activities, ETA encourages CBJTG applicants, particularly those serving rural areas and other areas that are educationally underserved due to lack of access to community colleges, to look at technology-based distance learning options when building their capacity to provide training. Technology-Based Learning
(TBL)is transforming the way people learn and can increase the geographic reach of training. TBL can be defined as the learning of content via all electronic technology, including the Internet, intranets, satellite broadcasts, audio and video tape, video and audio conference, Internet conferencing, chat rooms, bulletin boards, Web casts, computer-based instruction and CD-ROM. It encompasses related terms, such as online learning, Web-based learning, computer-based learning and e-learning. For example, a college may convert industry-specific curricula typically offered in traditional classroom settings to technology-based learning (e-learning or online) or develop technology-based learning training programs so that dislocated workers, incumbent workers, and/or new job entrants can access training 24 hours a day and seven days a week. 4. Leveraged Resources Projects funded through CBJTGs should leverage resources from key entities in the strategic partnership. Leveraging resources in the context of strategic partnerships accomplishes three goals:
(1)It allows for the strategic pursuit of resources;
(2)it increases stakeholder investment in the project at all levels including design and implementation phases; and
(3)it broadens the impact of the project itself. Applicants are encouraged to leverage significant resources from key partners and other organizations to maximize the impact of the project on the community. Leveraged resources include both federal and non-federal funds and may come from many sources. Businesses, faith-based and community organizations, economic development entities, education systems, and philanthropic foundations often invest resources to support workforce development. In addition, other federal, state, and local government programs may have resources available that can be integrated into the proposed project. Examples of such programs include other Department of Labor programs such as registered apprenticeship, as well as non-DOL One-Stop partner programs such as Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education, and Department of Education Pell Grants. Faith-based and community organizations may provide resources such as supportive services, mentoring, tutoring, and volunteers—all of which are important for grantees to leverage when assisting certain individuals targeted by these funds. For applicants who choose to leverage resources, please include the following information:
(1)The total amount leveraged from federal sources;
(2)the total amount leveraged from non-federal sources;
(3)the partners contributing the resources; and
(4)the projected activities, broken out by the source of the leveraged resource (federal or non-federal), to be implemented utilizing these resources. ETA encourages CBJTG applicants and their strategic partners to be entrepreneurial as they seek out, utilize, and sustain these resources, whether they are in-kind or cash contributions, when creating capacity building and training strategies to effectively address the workforce challenges identified by industry. ETA also encourages applicants to integrate WIA funding at the state and local level into their proposed project. Integrating WIA funds ensures that the full spectrum of assets available from the workforce system is leveraged to support capacity building and training activities. The wide variety of WIA programs and activities provide both breadth and depth to the proposed solution offered to both businesses and individuals. The use of WIA funds also serves to embed the solutions-based approach into the local or regional workforce investment system, which strengthens the system's ability to become more demand-driven. ETA will award 5 bonus points to applications that demonstrate the integration of WIA training funds into grant activities, such as covering tuition costs for eligible new or incumbent workers. Examples of WIA training funds include Individual Training Accounts, customized training, and Career Advancement Accounts. Individual Training Accounts
(ITAs)are training funds that can be used by individuals who have been determined eligible by their local One-Stop Career Center(s) to receive Workforce Investment Act
(WIA)funded training. Customized training, defined under the Workforce Investment Act and 20 CFR 663.715, is designed to meet the special requirements of an employer; is conducted with a commitment by the employer to employ, or continue to employ, an individual on successful completion of the training; and has the employer providing not less than 50% of the cost of the training. Career Advancement Accounts
(CAAs)have been proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget and are currently being piloted in eight states: Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. CAAs are self-managed accounts an individual would apply for at a One-Stop Career Center that would enable the individual to gain the education and training needed to successfully enter, navigate, and advance in 21st century jobs. 5. Replication of Successful Models for Broad Distribution CBJTGs are intended to drive the community college and workforce investment systems to be more responsive to the workforce demands of industry by making the products, models, and effective approaches that result from CBJTG investments available to both systems. To that end, grantees will develop the foundations and outcomes of CBJTG projects, including the learning and achievements resulting from the projects, into solutions-based models that can be shared with, and implemented by, other community colleges, the workforce system, and industry leaders. ETA is currently pursuing an aggressive national dissemination strategy for grant products that focuses on widely distributing grantee tools, models, and products through a network of stakeholders including education and industry partners, and the public workforce system. The products and tools developed through the CBJTGs, including curriculum, competency models, distance learning tools, career awareness and outreach materials, research, case studies, career lattices, creation of industry skill centers, and Web sites, will be part of this dissemination strategy. CDs with available products will be developed and distributed to appropriate education, workforce, and business and industry association partners. All of these products will also be available online at *www.Workforce3One.org.* CBJT grantees are required to submit to ETA products developed with grant funding; these products will be included in ETA's dissemination strategy. Workforce 3 One offers the public workforce system, employers, economic development professionals, and education professionals an innovative knowledge network designed to create and support demand-driven communities, one that responds directly to business needs and prepares workers for good jobs in the fastest growing careers. By supporting replicable projects that can be implemented in multiple areas and industries, ETA is able to maximize its investment by expanding the grant's impact beyond the initial grant site and helping additional businesses and workers in other regions. 6. Clear and Specific Outcomes The CBJTGs are fundamentally results-oriented. Grants are expected to generate clear and specific outcomes that are appropriate to the nature of the solution and size of the project; that are achievable by the partnership during the life of the grant; and that indicate progress towards meeting the workforce challenges identified by the partnership. Because CBJT grantees are expected to invest in customized strategies to address local and regional workforce and skills shortages, ETA recognizes that specific outcomes will vary from project to project based on the specific activities proposed by applicants. CBJTG applicants must demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed training activities by creating appropriate outcome projections for the project, which will be considered baseline performance measures for the grant if awarded. Additionally, applicants should note that CBJT grantees must report to ETA, on a quarterly basis, their progress towards meeting the projected capacity building and training outcomes listed in their applications. a. *Training Outcomes:* Training outcomes must include those tracked by the Common Measures, which are uniform evaluation metrics for job training and employment programs. The Common Measures are an integral part of ETA's performance accountability system. Applicants must include projected outcome numbers to be achieved during the life of the grant for each of the Common Measures. The Common Measures for adults include entered employment, job retention, and average earnings. For youth, the Common Measures include placement in employment or education, attainment of a degree or certificate, and literacy and numeracy gains. A detailed description of ETA's policy on the Common Measures can be found in the Training and Employment Guidance Letter
(TEGL)No. 17-05 ( *http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2195* ). A basic list of Common Measures is provided as attachment A to the TEGL ( *http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05_AttachA.pdf* ). Applicants are strongly encouraged to review these documents prior to submitting applications under this Solicitation. In addition to Common Measures, grantees will be required to report the number and types of credentials awarded to trainees, if appropriate, and the number of individuals placed in employment related to training. Applications must include projections of the number and type of credentials to be awarded and, if appropriate, the number of individuals placed in employment related to training. Please note that the Common Measures provide only part of the information necessary to measure CBJTGs successes effectively. CBJTG recipients may also have additional outcome measures appropriate to their project. On a quarterly basis, ETA will collect data from CBJT grantees on spending, program activities, participants, and all outcomes necessary to convey the full and accurate information on the performance of grantees and the program in general to policymakers and stakeholders. Applicants should note that proposals are evaluated based on outcomes, per the evaluation criteria in Section V(4)(A). Therefore, all outcomes and outcome projections provided in the application will become part of the project's statement of work as the baseline goals for the grant, should the application be funded. It is not ETA's intent to renegotiate performance outcomes after grant awards are made. Please note, ETA has published in the **Federal Register** a report format for Grantees under the High Growth Job Training Initiative and Community-Based Job Training Grants entitled: “High Growth and Community-Based Job Training Grants: General Quarterly Reporting Forms & Instructions.” This report format contains all of the above referenced outcomes, as well as other outcome categories, and was open for viewing and public comment through July 30, 2007. To view the entire proposed reporting package, including a link to the **Federal Register** , visit: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMB_1205-0NEW_20070530.cfm* . ETA strongly encourages applicants to review the proposed report format to ensure that they will be able to track and report on the information required. b. *Capacity Building Outcomes:* Grantees will be required to report, on a quarterly basis, the status of all capacity building activities under the grant; how the activity is linked to the specific training supported under the grant; and, if appropriate, the impact of the capacity building activity, including the exact methodology with operational parameters of how the impact measure is calculated. An example of a capacity building activity where it is appropriate to report impact is for teacher professional development/train-the-trainer activities, in which there are no employment related outcomes for those being trained; however, the impact of the grant activities has a far greater effect than on those just being trained. In this example, a grant may train 25 college students to be volunteer after-school “instructors” and the impact would be a total of 500 high school students because, over the three year period under the grant, each “instructor” taught one class with 20 high school students. Another area where it is appropriate to report impact is career awareness activities. Some capacity building activities, such as equipment purchases and faculty hires, may not have impact measures; therefore they do not require reports on impact numbers or methodology. Please note that capacity building outcomes and impacts of the proposed project must satisfactorily address the industry-identified workforce need and the capacity constraints identified by the community college, or other entity as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5). 7. Integration with Regional Economic and Talent Development Strategies Today's global economy requires new workforce development strategies that build on demand-driven approaches to propel economic growth. Successful workforce investment leads to the creation of new jobs by attracting new businesses and industries, and expanding existing companies in communities through a talent-rich workforce. Maintaining America's competitive position in the global economy requires a workforce with postsecondary education credentials and the capacity to work in a high-technology environment while creatively and collaboratively adapting as new technologies and business process innovations evolve. To keep pace with change, workers require lifelong learning opportunities. Rather than simply training the workforce for today's jobs, community colleges, the workforce investment system, and other entities in the continuum of education must operate as a talent development system, meeting industry's present needs while also collaborating with the region's economic development system to identify and support emerging industries. The goal is to ensure the availability of an educated and prepared workforce that is able to compete in the global economy by attracting and sustaining industry's investment in regional economies. While Community-Based Job Training Grants assist individual community colleges in building their capacity to provide training in high-growth/high-demand industry sectors of the economy, they also play a vital role in the development of a regional talent development system. Therefore, the capacity building and training activities occurring under CBJTGs should be aligned with, and integrated into, regional talent and economic development strategies. A regional approach under CBJTGs ensures that the full range of assets, resources, knowledge, and leadership are at the table to implement a solution that will address the critical capacity constraints faced by the community college while supporting talent development in the regional economy. To demonstrate that their projects are aligned with and integrated into regional talent and economic development strategies, applicants should describe how their capacity building and training solution are part of or complement existing regional approaches under regional talent and economic development plans and initiatives or is the catalyst for bringing partners together to begin the analysis and strategic planning in their region. Additionally, applicants should demonstrate alignment with regional talent and economic development strategies by integrating regional partnerships into their proposed capacity building and training activities. In addition to the partners required under this Solicitation, applicants can demonstrate connection to regional talent and economic development activities through broader and deeper partnerships with regional business leadership and organizations, such as chambers of commerce; economic development organizations at the regional level; the philanthropic community; seed and venture capital organizations or individuals; investor networks; entrepreneurs; faith and community-based organizations; and other regional entities. Finally, for applicants leveraging resources, applicants should demonstrate that the funds leveraged come from regional partners or from existing or planned talent development efforts within the region. II. Award Information A. Award Amount ETA intends to fund approximately seventy-five
(75)grants ranging from $500,000 to $2 million through this competition. However, this does not preclude ETA from funding grants at either a lower or higher amount, or funding a smaller or larger number of projects, based on the type and the number of quality submissions. Applicants are encouraged to submit budgets for quality projects at whatever funding level is appropriate to their project. Nevertheless, applicants should recognize that the funds available through this SGA are designed to complement additional leveraged resources rather than be the sole source of funds for the proposal. B. Period of Performance The period of grant performance will be up to 36 months from the date of execution of the grant documents. This performance period shall include all necessary implementation and start-up activities, participant follow-up for performance outcomes, and grant close-out activities. A timeline clearly detailing these required grant activities and their expected completion dates must be included in the grant application. ETA may elect to exercise its option to award no-cost extensions to grants for an additional period, based on the success of the program and other relevant factors, if the grantee applies for, and provides a significant justification for, such an extension. III. Eligibility Information and Other Grant Specifications A. Eligible Applicants In order to be eligible for consideration under this solicitation, the applicant must be either:
(1)An individual Community or Technical College,
(2)a Community College District,
(3)a state Community College System, or
(4)a One-Stop Career Center in partnership with its Local Workforce Investment Board. For educationally underserved communities without access to community or technical colleges, there are other eligible applicants; please see Section III(C)(5) . Requirements for each of these applicant types are provided below. 1. Community or Technical College applicants must demonstrate that they are a public, accredited institution of higher education that predominantly awards Associate's Degrees. This definition includes tribally controlled colleges and universities. Private for-profit and private not-for-profit institutions of higher education are not eligible to apply under this Solicitation. For the purposes of this paragraph, an “Institution of Higher Education” is defined as an entity that has its own Federal Tax Identification Number and has direct control of its funds. Entities that do not meet the above criteria may be eligible to apply under the exception in Section III(A)(5). 2. Community College District applicants must demonstrate that they are an education district organized by the state to define the community in which the college operates. Community College District applications must specify one or more community college(s) within the district where capacity building and training activities will occur under the grant. 3. State Community College System applicants must demonstrate that their office represents the management and supervision of a unified statewide system of community and technical colleges. State system applications must specify one or more community college(s) within the state where capacity building and training activities will occur under the grant. 4. One-Stop Career Centers, as established under Section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220). The eligible applicant for One-Stop Career Centers must be the One-Stop Operator, as defined under Section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220), on behalf of the One-Stop Career Center. The applicant must:
(1)Have a letter of concurrence from the Workforce Investment Board;
(2)demonstrate that the proposed activities are consistent with the state strategic Workforce Investment Act plan; and
(3)demonstrate that the Local Workforce Investment Board, or its designated fiscal agent, will serve as the fiscal agent for the grant by clearly providing the legal name and EIN of the fiscal agent. The Workforce Investment Board's support and involvement in the project should be detailed in the letter of concurrence, which should also address the above requirements
(2)and (3). Applications from One-Stop Career Centers without a letter of concurrence from their Workforce Investment Board will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed. One-Stop Career Center applications must specify one or more community college(s) where all capacity building and training activities will occur under the grant. One-Stop Career Center applicants should clearly note in the Abstract that they are applying under Section III(A)4, of the SGA. Additionally, in the abstract, One-Stop Career Center applicants should note that they are the One-Stop Career Center operator and provide the name of the One-Stop Career Center. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not required for eligibility; however, applicants are encouraged to leverage the resources of the partnership whenever possible. Five bonus points are available for applications that demonstrate that WIA training funds are integrated into grant activities. C. Other Grant Specifications 1. *Demonstrated Partnerships.* To be considered for funding under this SGA, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be implemented by a strategic partnership that includes at least one entity from each of the following categories:
(1)The Workforce Investment System, which may include State and Local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their partners;
(2)an individual community or technical college;
(3)employers and industry-related organizations such as associations and unions; and
(4)the continuum of education, including the K-12 public education system, adult education, four-year colleges and universities, and other training providers. Please note that some applicants applying under the exception may not have a community college partner. In these cases, the applicant should substitute the training provider as the required community college partner. Please see Section III(C)(5) for more details. The strategic partnership may be a legally organized partnership, joint venture, or a more informal collaboration. Please note, while at least one entity from each category is required, ETA strongly encourages as many partners as necessary from each category to fully represent the community and the entire continuum of education. 2. *Required Capacity Building and Training Activities.* To be considered for funding under this SGA, proposed grant activities must include a combination of capacity building and training activities at the community college, or other entities as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), that target skills and competencies demanded by local high-growth/high-demand industries that are defined in the context of the regional economy. In all applications, at least 50 percent of the proposed budget must be for tuition and related training costs for a substantive number of students enrolled in the grant training program. Related training costs include, but are not limited to, books, supplies, tools, and uniforms. Grantees are strongly encouraged to leverage other resources to cover the tuition costs for the students trained with grant funds to expand the number of individuals trained with the grant. Possible sources of leveraged resources for tuition include, but are not limited to, Pell Grants, student loans, and employer tuition reimbursement. Grantees may charge tuition and related training costs to students enrolled in the training program whose tuition is not covered by the grant; however, the leveraging of resources described above is strongly encouraged. Grantees must track and report performance outcomes on any individuals trained using grant dollars, either in whole or in part. Where grant dollars are combined with other leveraged resources to cover tuition for an individual being trained, that individual must be tracked for purposes of performance as well. Proposed capacity building activities must address barriers that impede the ability of the community college, or other entities specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), to meet local and regional industry demand for workforce training and must be directly linked to the specific training supported under the grant. Applicants may propose a cross-cutting capacity building and training strategy that will support training in more than one high-growth/high-demand industry if the applicant can demonstrate that skill needs in the identified industries are shared. Applicants that wish to propose training programs in two or more high-growth industries that do not share skill needs should do so through separate applications. 3. *Participants Eligible to Receive Training.* Generally, the scope of potential trainees is very broad. WIA Sec. 171(d) authorizes demonstration programs to serve dislocated workers, incumbent workers, and new entrants to the workforce. This authorization supports a broad range of training for a variety of populations, including: Incumbent workers who need new skills for jobs in demand at higher levels of the career ladder or because the skill needs for their current jobs have changed; untapped labor pools such as immigrant workers, individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals with disabilities, veterans, Indian and Native Americans, older workers, youth, etc; or entry level workers who need basic skills and/or specific occupational skill training. The identification of targeted and qualified trainees should be part of the larger project planning process undertaken by the required partnership and should relate to the workforce challenge that is being addressed by the training. 4. *Training Providers.* Community and technical colleges are the required training providers under Community-Based Job Training Grants, regardless of the applicant, with the exception of rural areas and other educationally underserved communities with no reasonable access to community colleges (please see Section III(C)(5) below for more information on this exception). ETA encourages applicants to be creative in integrating partner resources and expertise into the training plan. For example, a business partner may provide a qualified instructor to the community college; the community college may provide on-site training for workers to take advantage of business-loaned equipment; the training may be provided jointly; or the training may utilize technology-based distance learning alternatives as well as blended learning, which combines self-paced and instructor-led interactions. 5. *Exception to Eligible Applicants and Training Provider Requirements for Rural and Other Educationally Underserved Areas with No Access to Community Colleges.* ETA recognizes that some communities, particularly those in rural areas, may lack access to community and technical college training where physical college facilities are not reasonably close and technology-based and distance learning options are limited or not available. Educationally underserved communities that lack this access may submit proposals under the parameters detailed in this exception. In such cases, the applicant will be required to clearly state it is applying under this exception and must fully demonstrate as part of its statement of need that community college training is not reasonably available within commuting distance of the community in which grant activities will take place and that there are no viable technology-based or distance learning options available. Applicants may use mileage, population, and access to classrooms, Internet and other technology, public transportation and other services, as factors to support their demonstration of the lack of access to and availability of community college training. Please note that applications submitted under the exception must still meet all other requirements set forth in this Solicitation. Applicants must clearly note in the abstract that they are applying under this exception. Under this exception, the additional eligible applicants and requirements on training are listed below. a. Public, accredited Institutions of Higher Education that award certificates and both two-year and four-year degrees, and satellite campuses of such Institutions, are eligible to apply under this exception. However, the emphasis for capacity building and training activities under the grant must be at the certificate or two-year Associate's Degree level. The public institution of higher education applicant is also required to be the training provider for applications submitted under this exception and will serve as a substitute for the required community college training provider detailed in Section III(C)(4); b. Alternate Educational Entities that are governmental or not-for-profit organizations that directly deliver, or broker for delivery, post-secondary education opportunities in educationally underserved communities that lack access to community colleges are eligible to apply under this exception. Alternate Educational Entity applicants must demonstrate that:
(1)The emphasis for capacity building and training activities under the grant must be at the certificate or two-year Associates Degree level;
(2)the training is offered in partnership with a community college outside the underserved area and is acceptable for credit at or a credential from the partner community college; and
(3)a component of the capacity building activities supports the partnering community college for the purposes of enhancing the training services provided by that college to the underserved area. Additionally, applications must specify one or more community college(s) where capacity building and training activities will occur under the grant. 6. *Veterans Priority.* The Jobs for Veterans Act (Pub. L. 107-288) provides priority of service to veterans and spouses of certain veterans for the receipt of employment, training, and placement services in any job training program directly funded, in whole or in part, by the Department of Labor. In circumstances where a Community-Based Job Training Grant recipient must choose between two equally qualified candidates for training, one of whom is a veteran, the Jobs for Veterans Act requires that CBJTG recipients give the veteran priority of service by admitting him or her into the program. Please note that, to obtain priority of service, a veteran must meet the program's eligibility requirements. ETA Training and Employment Guidance Letter
(TEGL)No. 5-03 (September 16, 2003) provides general guidance on the scope of the Job for Veterans Act and its effect on current employment and training programs. TEGL No. 5-03, along with additional guidance, is available at the “Jobs for Veterans Priority of Service” Web site: *http://www.doleta.gov/programs/vets.* 7. *Re-designation of One-Stop Operators.* If at any time the applicant One-Stop Operator changes, then DOL and the WIB will modify the application or grant on behalf of the One-Stop Career Center, for the purpose of designating a new One-Stop Operator. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address To Request Application Package This SGA contains all of the information and links to forms needed to apply for grant funding. B. Content and Form of Application Submission The proposal must consist of two
(2)separate and distinct parts, Parts I and II. Applications that fail to adhere to the instructions in this section will be considered non-responsive and may not be given further consideration. Applicants who wish to apply do not need to submit a Letter of Intent. The completed application package is all that is required. Part I of the proposal is the Cost Proposal and must include the following three items: • The Standard Form
(SF)424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (available at *http://www.doleta.gov/sga/forms.cfm* ). The SF 424 must clearly identify the applicant and be signed by an individual with authority to enter into a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the SF 424 on behalf of the applicant will be considered the Authorized Representative of the applicant. • All applicants for federal grant and funding opportunities are required to have a Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number provided by Dun and Bradstreet. See Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Notice of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003). Applicants must supply their DUNS number on the SF 424. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access this Web site, *www.dunandbradstreet.com,* or call 1-866-705-5711. • The SF 424A Budget Information Form (available at *http://www.doleta.gov/sga/forms.cfm.* ) In preparing the Budget Information Form, the applicant must provide a concise narrative explanation to support the request. The budget narrative should include:
(1)The total amount leveraged from federal sources;
(2)the total amount leveraged from non-federal sources;
(3)the partners contributing the resources;
(4)the projected activities to be implemented utilizing leveraged resources, broken out by the source of the leveraged resource (federal or non-federal);
(5)the amount of grant funds to be spent on tuition and related training costs ( *Note:* At least 50% of the proposed budget must be for tuition and related training costs for a substantive number of students enrolled in the grant training program); and
(6)cost per-participant. In applications submitted by Community College Districts, State Community College Systems, One-Stop Career Centers, and alternate educational entities, the budget narrative should also break out the portion of the budget going to the applicant as well as the funds going to the community college for capacity building and training. Please note that applicants that fail to provide either the SF 424, SF 424A or the budget narrative will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. If the proposal calls for integrating WIA or other federal funds or includes other leveraged resources, these funds should not be listed on the SF 424 or SF 424A Budget Information Form, but should be described in the budget narrative and in Part II of the proposal. The amount of DOL funding requested for the entire period of performance (up to 36 months) should be shown together on the SF 424 and SF 424A Budget Information Form. Please do not show only one year of funding on your SF 424 or SF424A. Applicants are also encouraged, but not required, to submit OMB Survey N. 1890-0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, which can be found at *http://www.doleta.gov/sga/forms.cfm.* Part II of the application is the Technical Proposal, which demonstrates the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement the CBJTG in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation. The Technical Proposal is limited to twenty
(20)double-spaced, single-sided, 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages with 12 point text font and one-inch margins. Applicants should number the Technical Proposal beginning with page number one. Any pages over the 20 page limit will not be reviewed. In addition, in attachments which may not exceed ten
(10)pages, the applicant may provide resumes, a list of staff positions to be funded by the grant, statistical information, general letters of support, and other related material. The required letters of commitment from partners must be submitted as additional attachments and will not count against the allowable 10-page limit on attachments. Please note that applicants should not send letters of commitment or support separately to ETA because letters are tracked through a different system and will not be attached to the application for review. Additionally, the applicant must reference grant partners by organizational name in the text of the Technical Proposal. Except for the discussion of any leveraged resource to address the evaluation criteria, no cost data or reference to prices should be included in the Technical Proposal. In addition, the following information is required: • A table of contents listing the application sections; and • A one- to two-page time line outlining project activities and an anticipated schedule for deliverables. • A one- to two-page abstract summarizing the proposed project and applicant profile information including: Applicant name, project title, industry focus, partnership members, proposed training and capacity building activities, funding level requested, the amount of leveraged resources, the target group(s), and a project description as described in the evaluation criteria section at Section V(A) of this Solicitation. The abstract should also clearly note whether the application is being submitted by a One-Stop Career Center as mentioned in Section III(A)4 or under the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5). If the application is being submitted by a One-Stop Career Center, the applicant should note that they are the One-Stop Career Center operator and provide the name of the One-Stop Career Center. • A one- to three-page listing of all projected training, employment, and capacity building outcomes that includes the following: • For training outcomes list the projected numbers for all training activities, including but not limited to: • Total enrollment in training program; • Increase in enrollment attributed to grant (number of additional students); • The number of individuals trained using grant dollars, including individuals trained as a result of leveraging of resources (e.g., training is paid in whole or in part through sources other than the grant or tuition, including Pell Grants, student loans, employer tuition reimbursement, and Workforce Investment Act training resources such as customized training, ITAs, or pilot CAAs); • The number of individuals trained without use of grant dollars, such as those who pay tuition. • For those trained using grant dollars or leveraged resources, provide projections for: —Entered employment; —Employment retention; —Average earnings; —Entered employment in industry related to training; —Number receiving promotions and/or wage gains; —Number receiving credentials; and —For youth, literacy and/or numeracy gains. • For capacity building outcomes, include: • All products to be developed during the grant period. —List the capacity building product (including, but not limited to, curriculum and course materials, competency models and career ladders, outreach materials, reports and databases, and program management and implementation tools); —The projected date the product will be completed; and —The estimated number of individuals impacted or affected during the grant period. Please note that the abstract, summary of outcomes, table of contents, and time line are not included in the Technical Proposal page limitation, but have their own page limitations, listed above. Applications that do not provide Part II of the application may be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. Applications may be submitted electronically on www.grants.gov *or* in hard-copy via U.S. mail, professional overnight delivery service, or hand delivery. These processes are described in further detail in Section IV(C). Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy must submit an original signed application (including the SF 424) and one
(1)“copy-ready” version free of bindings, staples or protruding tabs to ease in the reproduction of the proposal by DOL. Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy are also requested, though not required, to provide an electronic copy of the proposal on CD-ROM. B. Submission Date, Times, and Addresses The closing date for receipt of applications under this Solicitation is October 10, 2007. Applications must be received at the address below or successfully submitted through grants.gov no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile
(fax)will not be accepted. Applications that do not meet the conditions set forth in this notice will not be honored. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted. ETA will post Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs)and host Virtual Prospective Applicant Conferences for this grant competition. The FAQs, as well as registration information for the Prospective Applicant Conferences will be posted on ETA's Web site at: *www.doleta.gov/business/Community-BasedJobTrainingGrants.cfm* and *www.workforce3one.org* . Please check these pages for updates periodically during the Solicitation. Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Eric Luetkenhaus, Reference SGA/DFA PY 07-01, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand delivered proposals will be received at the above address. Applicants may apply online through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). It is strongly recommended that applicants applying online for the first time via Grants.gov immediately initiate and complete the “Get Registered” registration steps at *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* . These steps may take multiple days or weeks to complete, and this time should be factored into plans for electronic application submission in order to avoid unexpected delays that could result in the rejection of an application. If submitting electronically through Grants.gov, the components of the application must be saved as either .doc, .xls or .pdf files. *Late Applications:* Any application received after the exact date and time specified for receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received before awards are made, was properly addressed, and:
(a)Was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application required to be received by the 20th of the month must be post marked by the 15th of that month) or
(b)was sent by professional overnight delivery service or submitted on Grants.gov to the addressee not later than one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications. It is highly recommended that online submissions be completed one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications to ensure that the applicant still has the option to submit by professional overnight delivery service in the event of any electronic submission problems. Applicants take a significant risk by waiting to the last day to submit by grants.gov. “Post marked” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants should request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the package. Failure to adhere to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of nonresponsiveness. Evidence of timely submission by a professional overnight delivery service must be demonstrated by equally reliable evidence created by the delivery service provider indicating the time and place of receipt. C. Intergovernmental Review This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order
(EO)12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” D. Funding Restrictions Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles, e.g., Educational Institution—OMB Circular A-21. Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowed in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles or other conditions contained in the grant. Applicants will not be entitled to reimbursement of pre-award costs. *Limitations on Cost Per-Participant* . Because the costs of training may vary considerably depending on the skills and competencies required in different occupations in different industries, flexibility will be provided on cost per- participant. However, applications for funding will be reviewed to determine if the cost of the training is appropriate and will produce the outcomes identified. Applicants should demonstrate that the proposed cost per- participant is aligned with existing price structures for similar training in the local area or other areas with similar characteristics, if available, or with the community college's, or other entity's as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), existing price structures for the type of program offered. *Indirect Costs.* As specified in OMB Circular Cost Principles, indirect costs are those that have been incurred for common or joint objectives and cannot be readily identified with a particular cost objective. In order to utilize grant funds for indirect costs incurred, the applicant must obtain an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with its Federal Cognizant Agency either before or shortly after the grant award. *Administrative Costs.* Under the CBJTGs, an entity that receives a grant to carry out a project or program may not use more than 5 percent of the amount of the grant to pay administrative costs associated with the program or project. Administrative costs could be both direct and indirect costs and are defined at 20 CFR 667.220. Administrative costs do not need to be identified separately from program costs on the SF 424A Budget Information Form. They should be discussed in the budget narrative and tracked through the grantee's accounting system. Although there will be administrative costs associated with the managing of the partnership as it relates to specific grant activity, the primary use of funding should be to support the actual capacity building and training activity(ies). To claim any administrative costs that are also indirect costs, the applicant must obtain an indirect cost rate agreement from its federal cognizant agency as specified above. *Use of Funds for Supportive Services.* Use of grant funds for supportive services, such as transportation and childcare, is not an allowable cost under this Solicitation for Grant Applications, including funds provided through stipends for such purposes. *Use of Stipends.* The provision of stipends to training enrollees for the purposes of wage replacement is not an allowable cost under this Solicitation for Grant Applications. *Salary and Bonus Limitations.* In compliance with Public Law 109-234 and Public Law 110-5, none of the funds appropriated in Public Law 109-149, Public Law 110-5, or prior Acts under the heading `Employment and Training' that are available for expenditure on or after June 15, 2006, shall be used by a recipient or sub-recipient of such funds to pay the salary and bonuses of an individual, either as direct costs or indirect costs, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II, except as provided for under section 101 of Public Law 109-149. This limitation shall not apply to vendors providing goods and services as defined in OMB Circular A-133. See Training and Employment Guidance Letter number 5-06 for further clarification: *http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2262.* *Legal Rules Pertaining to Inherently Religious Activities by Organizations that Receive Federal Financial Assistance* . The government is generally prohibited from providing direct financial assistance for inherently religious activities (please see 29 CFR part 2, subpart D). These grants may not be used for religious instruction, worship, prayer, proselytizing or other inherently religious activities. Neutral, non-religious criteria that neither favors nor disfavors religion will be employed in the selection of grant recipients and must be employed by grantees in the selection of sub-recipients. *ETA Intellectual Property Rights* . Applicants should note that grantees must agree to provide USDOL/ETA a paid-up, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use for federal purposes all products developed or for which ownership was purchased under an award, including but not limited to curricula, training models, technical assistance products, and any related materials, and to authorize them to do so. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by any means, electronically or otherwise. E. Withdrawal of Applications Applications may be withdrawn by written notice at any time before an award is made. Applications may be withdrawn in person by the applicant or by an authorized representative thereof, if the representative's identity is made known and the representative signs a receipt for the proposal. V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria This section identifies and describes the criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals for a Community-Based Job Training Grant. These criteria and point values are: Criterion Points 1. Statement of Need 10 2. Linkages to Key Partners 20 3. Training and Capacity Building Plan 25 4. Outcomes, Benefits, and Impact 30 5. Program Management and Organization Capacity 10 6. Integration with and Regional Economic and Talent Development Strategies 5 7. Bonus: Integration of Workforce Investment Act training funds 5 Total Possible Points 105 1. Statement of Need (10 Points) Applicants must demonstrate a clear and specific need for the federal investment in the proposed activities by:
(a)Identifying the industry or industries of focus;
(b)establishing that the identified industry satisfies ETA's criteria for a high-growth/high-demand industry in the local or regional economy as described in Section I(C)(1) of this solicitation;
(c)providing evidence of industry demand for training in the local or regional economy; and
(d)describing in detail the capacity challenges the community college(s), or other entity as specified in the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5), faces that limit its ability to provide sufficient quantity or quality of training to meet the identified industry's demand. Applicants may draw from a variety of resources for supporting data, including: Traditional labor market information, such as projections; industry data from trade or industry associations, Chambers of Commerce, or direct information from the local employers or industry; information on the local and regional economy from economic development agencies; and other transactional data, such as job vacancies. In addition to the above, applicants applying under the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5) must also demonstrate that community college training is not reasonably available within commuting distance of the community in which grant activities will take place and that there are no viable technology-based or distance learning options available. Applicants may wish to use mileage, population, and access to classrooms, Internet and other technology, public transportation and other services, in their demonstration of community college training not being reasonably available in their community. 2. Linkages to Key Partners (20 Points) The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be implemented by a strategic partnership that includes at least one entity from each of four categories:
(1)The workforce investment system, which may include State and Local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their partners, as such terms are defined under WIA;
(2)community and technical colleges;
(3)employers and industry-related organizations such as associations and unions; and
(4)the continuum of education, including the K-12 public education system. Please note, some applications submitted under the exception outlined in Section III(C)(5) may have a substitution for the community college partner. Please see Section III(C)(5) for more details. The applicant must identify the partners by organizational name and category, explain the meaningful role each partner will play in the project, and document the resources leveraged from each partner. Collaborating partners must verify their role through a letter of commitment detailing the roles, responsibilities, and resources the partner will commit to the project. The letters of commitment must be attached to the proposal. Applicants must also identify resources leveraged from other organizations, including other workforce investment system partners. ETA encourages, and will be looking for, applications that go beyond the minimum level of partnership and demonstrate broader, substantive and sustainable partnerships. Scoring on this criterion will be based on the following factors: • *Evidence of Required Partners (5 points):* The applicant must identify and provide evidence that the partnership contains each of the required partner entities. Applications that do not have each of the four required entities represented in the partnership will not receive any points for this factor. • *Comprehensiveness of the Partnership (7 points):* The applicant must explain the meaningful role each partner will play in the project. Points for this factor will be awarded based on:
(1)The degree to which each partner, including all required partners, plays a committed role, either financial or non-financial, in the proposed project;
(2)the breadth and depth of each partners contribution, their knowledge and experience concerning grant activities, and their ability to impact the success of the project; and
(3)evidence, including letters of commitment from required partners, that key partners have expressed a clear dedication to the project and understand their area of responsibility. Applications that do not have each of the four required entities represented in the partnership cannot receive full points for this factor. • *Partnership Management (8 points):* Points for this factor will be awarded based on:
(1)The evidence of a plan for interaction between partners at each stage of the project, from planning to execution;
(2)the evidence that the capacity challenge to be addressed by the grant was identified in the context of the strategic partnership;
(3)demonstrated ability of the lead partner to successfully manage partnerships;
(4)the ability of the partnership to manage all aspects and stages of the project and to coordinate individual activities with the partnership as a whole;
(5)the robustness of the applicant's plan for sustaining the partnership beyond the funding period, and
(6)evidence that the partnership has the capacity to achieve the outcomes of the proposed project. 3. Training and Capacity Building Plan (25 Points) The applicant must describe its proposed capacity building and training strategies in full. Scoring on this criterion will be based on: • *Effective, Innovative Training and Capacity Building Strategies (15 points):* The applicant must provide evidence that:
(1)The proposed project will address identified industry workforce or skills shortages and identified capacity constraints at the community college level or in the community if the application is submitted under the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5);
(2)there is a demonstrated link between the proposed project and the identified industry workforce challenge or skills shortages and identified capacity constraints at the community college level or in the community, if the application is submitted under the exception detailed in Section III(C)(5);
(3)the proposed project clearly integrates industry-driven capacity building and training activities;
(4)proposed capacity building solutions are broad-based and include an appropriate range of activities;
(5)the proposed capacity building activities increase the capacity of the college to provide training by increasing their enrollment numbers, thereby increasing the pipeline of skilled workers ready for employment or promotion in the regional economy;
(6)proposed training activities occur within the context of a continuum of education and training that supports long-term career growth, such as an articulated career ladder/lattice;
(7)proposed training activities lead to appropriate college credit or credentialing; and
(8)at least 50% of the proposed budget is for tuition and related training costs, which include but are not limited to books, supplies, tools, and uniforms, for a substantive number of students enrolled in the grant training program. • *Implementation Strategy (10 points):* Applicants can earn up to 10 points based on evidence that the applicant has a clear understanding of the tasks required to successfully meet the objectives of the grant. Factors considered in evaluating this evidence include:
(1)The existence of a work plan that is responsive to the applicant's statement of need and includes specific goals, objectives, activities, implementation strategies, and a timeline;
(2)the feasibility and reasonableness of the timeline for accomplishing all necessary implementation activities, including start-up, capacity building and training activities, participant follow-up for performance outcomes, and grant closeout activities;
(3)whether the budget line items are consistent with and tied to work plan objectives;
(4)the extent to which the budget is justified with respect to the adequacy and reasonableness of the resources requested;
(5)the extent to which the proposed cost-per-participant is aligned with existing price structures for similar training; and
(6)the presence of a robust outreach strategy that includes the dissemination of information regarding the project to others who would benefit most, and, if appropriate, recruitment of eligible participants. 4. Outcomes, Benefits, and Impact (30 Points) Applicants must demonstrate an outcome-based approach to managing and operating their CBJTG. This should be achieved by fully describing the measures that will be used to evaluate the success and impact of the project, and highlight the benefits and impact of the outcomes and products on the larger capacity constraint(s) described in the statement of need. Scoring on this criterion will be based on the following factors: a. *Description of Outcomes (20 points):* Applicants may earn up to 20 points for indicating the appropriate outcomes that will be tracked as detailed below. Additionally, the description of outcomes must include:
(1)Projected outcomes, to be used as baseline numbers for tracking progress, in the categories of total enrollment in training program, increase in enrollment attributed to grant (number of additional students), completion of training, entered employment in an industry related to training, and ETA's Common Measures, which include entered employment, employment, and average earnings for adults; and placement in employment or education, degree or certificate attainment, and literacy and numeracy gains for youth; and
(2)the methods proposed to collect and validate outcome data in a timely and accurate manner. b. *Training (10 points):* Applicants must track training outcome measures that are consistent with ETA's Common Measures, including employment placement numbers, employment retention, and average earnings for adults; and placement in employment or education, degree or certificate attainment, and literacy and numeracy gains for youth. Other outcome measures that must be tracked include the number of individuals awarded credentials or degrees; the number of individuals trained using grant dollars, including individuals trained as a result of leveraging of resources (e.g. training is paid in whole or in part through sources other than the grant or tuition, including Pell Grants, student loans, employer tuition reimbursement, and Workforce Investment Act training resources such as customized training, ITAs, or pilot CAAs); the number of individuals trained without use of grant dollars, such as those who pay tuition; the number of individuals employed in training-related occupation; the number of individuals that received a promotion or wage gain as a result of training; and other outcome measures specific to the proposed training project. Applicants must also identify the credential that participants will earn as a result of the proposed training, and the employer-, industry-, or state-defined standards associated with the credential. If the credential targeted by the training project is a certificate or performance-based certification, applicants should either
(a)demonstrate employer engagement in the curriculum development process, or
(b)indicate that the certification will translate into concrete job opportunities with an employer. c. *Capacity Building (10 points):* Applicants must clearly describe all products, models, curricula, etc. that will be developed or acquired with federal funds through the grant and indicate the impact of the capacity building activity (e.g. the number of participants or entities who will benefit from the proposed activities). Applicants must describe the impact measure associated with the capacity building activity, if applicable, and the exact methodology of the impact measure, including any important operational parameters. d. *Appropriateness of Outcomes (10 points):* Applicants may earn up to 10 points based on three factors:
(1)The extent to which the expected project outcomes are clearly identified and measurable, realistic and consistent with the objectives of the project;
(2)the ability of the applicant to achieve the stated outcomes within the timeframe of the grant;
(3)the appropriateness of the outcomes with respect to the extent of the community college's identified capacity challenges and the requested level of funding. 5. Program Management and Organization Capacity (10 Points) To satisfy this criterion, applicants must describe their proposed project management structure including, where appropriate, the identification of a proposed project manager, and discuss the proposed staffing pattern and the qualifications and experience of key staff members. Applicants should also provide evidence of the use of data systems to track outcomes in a timely and accurate manner. The applicant should include a description of organizational capacity and the organization's track record in projects similar to that described in the proposal and/or related activities of the primary partners. Scoring under this criterion will be based on the extent to which applicants provide evidence of the following: • The time commitment of the proposed staff is sufficient to ensure proper direction, management, and timely completion of the project; • The roles and contribution of staff, consultants, and collaborative organizations are clearly defined and linked to specific objectives and tasks; • The background, experience, and other qualifications of the staff are sufficient to carry out their designated roles; and • The applicant organization has significant capacity to accomplish the goals and outcomes of the project, including the ability to collect and manage data in a way that allows consistent, accurate, and expedient reporting. 6. Integration With Regional Economic and Talent Development Strategies (5 Points) Scoring on this criterion will be based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate that their CBJTG project is aligned with and integrated into their region's talent development and economic development strategy. Applicants may receive up to 5 points by: • Summarizing the region's strategic vision and workforce education strategies in support of talent development and economic growth; and • Either describing how their capacity building and training solution is part of or complements existing approaches under regional talent development and economic development plans and initiatives; or describing how their CBJTG project is a catalyst for bringing partners together to begin the analysis and strategic planning in their region. • Describing any regional partnerships that are part of their capacity building and training plans and detail how the partnerships are broader and deeper in scope than the local partnerships in place for the proposed capacity building and training activity. Regional partners may include regional business leadership and organizations, such as chambers of commerce; economic development entities at the regional level; the philanthropic community; seed and venture capital organizations or individuals; investor networks; entrepreneurs; and faith and community-based organizations. • For applicants leveraging resources, describing how the funds leveraged come from regional partners or from existing or planned talent development efforts within the region. 7. Integration of Workforce Investment Act Training Funds (5 Points). ETA will award 5 bonus points to applications that demonstrate with evidence the integration of WIA training funds into grant activities. Examples of WIA training funds include, but are not limited to, Individual Training Accounts, customized training, and Career Advancement Accounts, as applicable. To receive 5 bonus points, applicants must provide a detailed description of the role of Workforce Investment Act training resources in the CBJTG project that includes:
(1)The type of WIA training funds leveraged;
(2)the dollar amount leveraged;
(3)the workforce system partner involved;
(4)the role of the resources in the project; and
(5)the impact of the Workforce Investment Act training funds. An example of 5-point description is: “The One Stop Career Center will leverage from its WIA resources $ *x* in ITA's for our CBJTG project The impact will be that the One-Stop Career Center will assess and refer a minimum of *x* candidates for training and provide them with ITA's for training under the CBJTG.” This information should also be included in the letter of commitment from the workforce system partner. No bonus points will be awarded to applicants for simply stating that WIA funds will be integrated into the project. B. Review and Selection Process Applications for the Community-Based Job Training Grants will be accepted after the publication of this announcement until the closing date. A technical review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications against the criteria set forth in Section V(A) of this Solicitation. These criteria are based on the policy goals, priorities, and emphases set forth in this SGA. Up to 105 points may be awarded to an application, based on the required information described in Section V(A) of this Solicitation. The ranked scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of applications for funding, in conjunction with other factors such as urban, rural, and geographic balance; industry balance; the availability of funds; and which proposals are most advantageous to the Government. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer, who may consider any information that comes to his attention. DOL may elect to award the grant(s) with or without prior discussions with the applicants. Should a grant be awarded without discussions, the award will be based on the applicant's signature on the SF 424, which constitutes a binding offer. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices All award notifications will be posted on the ETA Homepage ( *http://www.doleta.gov* ). Applicants selected for award will be contacted directly before the grant's execution. Applicants not selected for award will be notified by mail. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Administrative Program Requirements All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and the applicable OMB Circulars. The grant(s) awarded under this SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable: a. Workforce Investment Act—20 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Part 667. (General Fiscal and Administrative Rules). b. Non-Profit Organizations—OMB Circulars A-122 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements). c. Educational Institutions—OMB Circulars A-21 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements). d. State and Local Governments—OMB Circulars A-87 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 97 (Administrative Requirements). e. Profit Making Commercial Firms—Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)—48 CFR Part 31 (Cost Principles), and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements). f. All entities must comply with 29 CFR Parts 93 and 98, and, where applicable, 29 CFR Parts 96 and 99. g. The following administrative standards and provisions may also be applicable: i. 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal Treatment in Department of Labor Programs for Religious Organizations, Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries; ii. 29 CFR part 30—Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training; iii. 29 CFR part 31—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; iv. 29 CFR part 32—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance; v. 29 CFR part 33—Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of Labor; vi. 29 CFR part 35—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of Labor; vii. 29 CFR part 36—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance; vii. 29 CFR part 37—Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. In accordance with Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65) (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue Service Code section 501(c)
(4)that engage in lobbying activities are not eligible to receive Federal funds and grants. Note: Except as specifically provided in this Notice, DOL/ETA's acceptance of a proposal and an award of Federal funds to sponsor any program(s) does not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or procedures. For example, OMB Circulars require that an entity's procurement procedures must ensure that all procurement transactions are conducted, as much as practical, to provide open and free competition. If a proposal identifies a specific entity to provide services, the DOL/ETA's award does not provide the justification or basis to sole source the procurement, i.e., avoid competition, unless the activity is regarded as the primary work of an official partner to the application. C. Special Program Requirements *Evaluation.* DOL may require that the program or project participate in an evaluation of overall performance of CBJTGs. To measure the impact of the CBJTGs, ETA may arrange for or conduct an independent evaluation of the outcomes and benefits of the projects. Grantees must agree to make records on participants, employers and funding available, and to provide access to program operating personnel and participants, as specified by the evaluator(s) under the direction of ETA, including after the expiration date of the grant. D. Reporting The grantee is required to provide the reports and documents listed below: *Quarterly Financial Reports.* A Quarterly Financial Status Report (SF 269) is required until such time as all funds have been expended or the grant period has expired. Quarterly reports are due 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. Grantees must use ETA's On-Line Electronic Reporting System. *Quarterly Progress Reports.* The grantee must submit a quarterly progress report to the designated Federal Project Officer within 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. Two copies are to be submitted providing a detailed account of activities undertaken during that quarter. DOL may require additional data elements to be collected and reported on either a regular basis or special request basis. Grantees must agree to meet DOL reporting requirements. The quarterly progress report should be in narrative form and should include: 1. General Grant Information, including a summary of grant activities and a status update on leveraged resources and strategic partner activities; 2. A Grant Timeline that includes the progress of grant activities, the key deliverables for each quarter, and the products available each quarter; 3. Grant Outcomes, including information on all capacity building, training, employer, and grant deliverable outcomes as well as the anticipated impact of these outcomes on the community college, industry partners, and the broader community; and dissemination activities and events for grant deliverables. Training outcomes will include quarterly and cumulative reports on the projected outcomes that include, but are not limited to: enrollment, number completed training, number of certificates awarded, ETA's Common Measures, including entered employment, employment retention, and average earnings; number entered into employment related to training; and number receiving wage gains and promotions. 4. Highlights of Promising Approaches and Success Stories; and 5. Description of Technical Assistance Needs. *Final Report.* A draft final report must be submitted no later than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the grant. This report must summarize project activities, employment outcomes, and related results of the training project, and should thoroughly document capacity building and training approaches. The final report should also include copies of all deliverables, e.g. curricula and competency models. After responding to DOL questions and comments on the draft report, three copies of the final report must be submitted no later than the grant expiration date. Grantees must agree to use a designated format specified by DOL for preparing the final report. VII. Agency Contacts For further information regarding this SGA, please contact Melissa Abdullah, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, at
(202)693-3346 (Please note this is not a toll-free number). Applicants should fax all technical questions to
(202)693-2705 and must specifically address the fax to the attention of Melissa Abdullah and should include SGA/DFA PY 07-01, a contact name, fax and phone number, and e-mail address. This announcement is being made available on the ETA Web site at *http://www.doleta.gov/sga/sga.cfm* , at *http://www.grants.gov* , as well as the **Federal Register** . VIII. Additional Resources and Other Information Resources for the Applicant DOL maintains a number of web-based resources that may be of assistance to applicants. • The Web site for the Employment and Training Administration ( *http://www.doleta.gov* ) is a valuable source for background information on the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative. • Short descriptions of previously funded Community-Based Job Training Grants can be found at *http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/CBJTGrants/.* • The Workforce 3 One Web site, www.workforce3one.org, is a valuable resource for information about demand-driven projects of the workforce investment system, educators, employers, and economic development representatives. Additionally, current High Growth and Community-Based Job Training Grantees are posting their deliverables on this Web site. • America's Service Locator ( *www.servicelocator.org* ) provides a directory of the nation's One-Stop Career Centers. • Career Voyages ( *www.careervoyages* ), a Web site targeted at youth, parents, counselors, and career changers, provides information about career opportunities in high-growth/high-demand industries. • Applicants are encouraged to review “Help with Solicitation for Grant Applications” ( *http://www.dol.gov/cfbci/sgabrochure.htm).* • For a basic understanding of the grants process and basic responsibilities of receiving Federal grant support, please see “Guidance for Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government” ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/index.html* ). Other Information *OMB Information Collection No.:* 1205-0458. *Expires:* September 30, 2009. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, the OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Please do not return the completed application to the OMB. Send it to the sponsoring agency as specified in this solicitation. This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be confidential. Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2007. Eric D. Luetkenhaus, Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15362 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection to evaluate the impact of the Big Read audio guide distribution to public libraries. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below on or before October 5, 2007. The NEA is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. ADDRESSES: Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 616, Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone
(202)682-5424 (this is not a toll-free number), fax
(202)682-5677. Murray Welsh, Director, Administrative Services, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E7-15364 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-410] Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for; Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated August 11, 2006, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, located in Oswego County, New York. The proposed amendment would have modified Technical Specification 3.3.2.1, “Control Rod Block Instrumentation,” to change the number of startups allowed with the rod worth minimizer inoperable from one per calendar year to two per operating cycle. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56192). However, by letter dated July 17, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 11, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated July 17, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 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.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of July 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Douglas V. Pickett, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-15460 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Seeks Qualified Candidates for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for résumés. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)seeks qualified candidates for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Submit résumés to: Ms. Angelina Chapeton, Administrative Assistant, ACRS/ACNW&M, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or e-mail *AHC@NRC.GOV* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACRS is a part-time advisory group which is statutorily mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. ACRS provides independent expert advice on matters related to the safety of existing and proposed nuclear power plants and on the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. Of primary importance are the safety issues associated with the operation of 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States and regulatory initiatives, including risk-informed and performance-based regulations, license renewal, power uprates, and the use of mixed oxide and high burnup fuels. An increased emphasis is being given to safety issues associated with new reactor designs and technologies, including passive system reliability and thermal hydraulic phenomena, use of digital instrumentation and control, international codes and standards used in multinational design certifications, material and structural engineering, and nuclear analysis and reactor core performance. The ACRS also has some involvement in security matters related to the integration of safety and security of commercial reactors. This work involves technical issues associated with consequence analyses and the assessment of effective mitigation strategies. See NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs.html* for additional information about ACRS. Criteria used to evaluate candidates include education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear reactor safety matters, the ability to solve complex technical problems, and the ability to work collegially on a board, panel, or committee. The Commission, in selecting its Committee members, considers the need for a specific expertise to accomplish the work expected to be before the ACRS. ACRS Committee members are appointed for four-year terms and normally serve no more than three terms. The Commission hopes to fill three vacancies as a result of this request. For these positions, the expertise must be at least 10 years of experience in one or more of the areas of Materials Engineering, Digital Instrumentation and Control, or plant Operations. Candidates with pertinent graduate level experience will be given additional consideration. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds, so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. Candidates will undergo a through security background check to obtain the security clearance that is mandatory for all ACRS members. The security background check will involve the completion and submission of paperwork to NRC. Candidates for ACRS appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry. Because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACRS activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individual's activities as a member will be considered in the selection process. Each qualified candidate's financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request. A résumé describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including any special accomplishments, publications, and professional references should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number, and e-mail address. All candidates will receive careful consideration. Appointment will be made without regard to factors such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 100 days per year to Committee business. Résumés will be accepted until November 30, 2007. Dated: August 2, 2007. Kenneth R. Hart, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-15509 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [EA-07-098; Dockets: 50-89 and 50-163] In the Matter of General Atomics; TRIGA Mark I and Mark F; Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check; Requirements for Unescorted Access to the General Atomics' Research and Test Reactors (Effective Immediately) General Atomics (GA or the licensee) holds two licenses, R-38 and R-67, for TRIGA reactors, that are classified as research and test reactors (RTRs), issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)of 1954, as amended, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission). On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)identification and criminal history records check of any person who is permitted unescorted access to a utilization facility, which includes the GA RTRs. Prior to September 11, 2001, the Commission established physical protection requirements applicable to RTRs, which included storing and using special nuclear material in controlled access areas, monitoring the controlled access areas for unauthorized activities, and ensuring a response to all unauthorized activities. Subsequent to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC took various actions to ensure the acceptability of individuals for unescorted access to RTRs. RTRs were advised to consider taking additional precautions including observation of activities within their facility. Licensee's precautions were evaluated at specific RTR sites during the remainder of 2001. From 2002 through 2004, RTRs implemented compensatory measures (CMs), which included site-specific background investigations or checks. Additionally, in January 2003, NRC sent the names of, and information on, all individuals with unescorted access at RTRs to U.S. intelligence agencies for review. This review found no issues. Individuals with unescorted access since January 2003 have undergone site-specific background investigations or checks, which were implemented as part of CMs implemented at RTRs in response to NRC initiatives. The RTR site-specific background investigations and checks were established using a graded approach, considering the specific configuration, uses and radiological risk of each facility, to provide acceptable protection of the special nuclear material and any associated radioactive materials. The background investigations and checks, at a minimum, verify identity, nationality, immigration status (if applicable), and determine whether the individual demonstrates a pattern of trustworthy and reliable behavior through facility-specific verification of various aspects of the person's background. This verification includes consideration of educational, military, employment and criminal histories. With regard to criminal history, some of the RTR facilities use FBI fingerprint-based criminal history records checks, while others use either State fingerprint-based criminal history records checks or criminal history records checks which do not include fingerprints. These background investigations or checks, through a combination of various elements, have provided additional assurance for the protection of the specific facility from insider threats. Further, RTRs are required by Order dated September 29, 2006, to have FBI fingerprint-based identification and criminal history records checks for persons that are allowed access to Safeguards Information (SGI). 1 These individuals are allowed access to the details of security plans or procedures at the specific facility and, as such, have actual knowledge and ability to affect facility security. This Order provides additional assurance that security information and the associated RTR facilities are adequately protected. 1 “Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately),” (EA-06-203) dated September 29, 2006, (71 FR 59140, Oct. 6, 2006) (ML061510049). Previously, AEA section 149 only required fingerprinting and criminal history records checks of persons seeking unescorted access to facilities licensed under sections 103 and 104b of the AEA (i.e., power reactors). Power reactors are required by 10 CFR 73.57 to have fingerprint-based criminal history records checks performed as part of the granting of unescorted access to the facility. RTRs have not been subject to this requirement, and have only been required to limit access to authorized persons and to screen those persons for access in accordance with their security plans or procedures. Congress left intact the Commission's authority to relieve persons by rule from the fingerprinting, identification, and criminal history records check requirements of section 149 of the AEA “if the Commission finds that such action is consistent with its obligations to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public.” 2 Currently, the NRC does not have a rule that would provide relief from, or require, the implementation of AEA section 149 for fingerprinting for unescorted access to RTRs. 2 AEA § 149.b. The NRC is planning a rulemaking to reexamine the extent of fingerprint-based criminal history records checks for unescorted access to RTRs to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security. In the interim, the NRC has decided to implement this requirement, in part, prior to the completion of the rulemaking to provide acceptable, additional assurance that an individual with unescorted access to an RTR facility will not adversely impact the common defense and security or the public health and safety. Therefore, in accordance with section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing the FBI criminal history records check requirements, as set forth in this Order, including the Attachment to this Order, on RTR licensees, including GA. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. The AEA requires fingerprint-based criminal history records checks at utilization facilities. Section 11cc of the AEA defines a utilization facility as:
(1)Any equipment or device, except an atomic weapon, determined by rule of the Commission to be capable of making use of special nuclear material in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security, or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public, or peculiarly adapted for making use of atomic energy in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security, or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public; or
(2)any important component part especially designed for such equipment or device as determined by the Commission. The Commission's rules, in 10 CFR 50.2, define a “[u]tilization facility” as “any nuclear reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the formation of plutonium or U-233.” Further, “Nuclear reactor” is defined as “an apparatus, other than an atomic weapon, designed or used to sustain nuclear fission in a self-supporting chain reaction.” These definitions include the GA RTRs. For purposes of this Order, an individual who is granted “unescorted access” could exercise physical control over the special nuclear material possessed by the licensee, which would be of significance to the common defense and security or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public, such that the special nuclear material could be used or removed in an unauthorized manner without detection, assessment, or response by systems or persons designated to detect, assess or respond to such unauthorized use or removal. At RTRs, such individuals include those with the capability and knowledge to use the special nuclear material in the utilization facility or remove the special nuclear material from the utilization facility in an unauthorized manner without detection, assessment, and response by the physical protection system or related provisions or persons. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 53, 104, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 73, *It is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that General Atomics shall comply with the requirements set forth in this order. A. General Atomics shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order, establish and maintain a fingerprinting program for unescorted access that meets the requirements of the Attachment to this Order. 2. The Licensee shall, in writing, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission
(1)of receipt and confirmation that compliance with the Order will be achieved or
(2)if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment, or
(3)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. B. In accordance with the NRC's “Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately)” (EA-06-203) issued on September 29, 2006, (71 FR 59140, October 6, 2006), only the NRC-approved reviewing official shall review results from a FBI criminal history records check. In accordance with all other applicable requirements and the evaluation of the results of the FBI criminal history records check as specified in this Order, the reviewing official shall determine whether an individual may have, or continue to have, unescorted access. No person may have access to SGI or unescorted access to any utilization facility, or radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC if the NRC has determined, in accordance with its administrative review process based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and criminal history records check, either that the person may not have access to SGI or that the person may not have unescorted access to a utilization facility, or radioactive material or property subject to regulation by the NRC. C. Fingerprints shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in the Attachment to this Order. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and granted access to SGI by the NRC-approved reviewing official in accordance with EA-06-203 (September 29, 2006), do not need to be fingerprinted again for purposes of authorizing unescorted access. In addition, individuals who have a favorably decided U.S. Government criminal history records check within the last five
(5)years, or who have an active Federal security clearance have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again, provided in each case that the appropriate documentation is made available to the Licensee's reviewing official. However, all other applicable requirements must be satisfied to allow any individual unescorted access to the facility. D. The Licensee may allow any individual who currently has unescorted access, in accordance with applicable requirements, to continue to have unescorted access, pending a decision by the reviewing official (based on fingerprinting and a FBI criminal history records check) that the individual may continue to have unescorted access. The licensee shall complete implementation of the requirements of the Attachment to this Order by October 30, 2007. Licensee responses to Condition A.2. shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. The Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the Licensee. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Material Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions as specified above in section III shall be final twenty
(20)days from the date of this Order without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 1st day of August, 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. George Pangburn, Acting Director, Office of Federal and State Materials. and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-15494 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FY 2007-FY 2012 Strategic Plan, NUREG-1614, Volume 4 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the availability of draft NUREG-1614, Volume 4. “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FY 2007-FY 2012 Strategic Plan,” dated July 2007. The comment period on the draft strategic plan ends September 7, 2007. Comments on the draft plan are to be submitted in electronic format (Microsoft Word) using e-mail to: *StratPlan@nrc.gov* or mail to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, mail Stop T6-D59, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; or faxed to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch at
(301)415-5144. ADDRESSES: Draft NUREG-1614, Volume 4, is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. You may also electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections* . A free single copy of Draft NUREG-1614, Volume 4, to the extent of availability, may be requested by writing to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Reproduction and Distribution Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Printing and Graphics Branch, Washington, DC 20555-0001; facsimile: 301-415-2289; e-mail: *DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov* . Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections* are updated regularly and may differ from the last printed version. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George S. Smolik, Planning Team Chief, Division of Planning, Budget, and Analysis, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Government Performance and Results Act
(GRPA)requires that an agency's strategic plan be updated for submission to the Congress and the President every three years. The NRC is developing a new strategic plan for FY 2007-FY 2012 to replace the agency's existing strategic plan. The NRC is seeking comments on its draft FY 2007-FY 2012 Strategic Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML072080203). The draft Strategic Plan establishes the agency's long-term strategic direction and outcomes. It provides a foundation to guide NRC's work and to allocate NRC's resources. The NRC's draft FY 2007-FY 2012 Strategic Plan describes the agency's mission, vision, and strategic objective, which remain unchanged. The NRC's priority continues to be, as always, to ensure the adequate protection of public health, safety, and the environment, and promoting common defense and security. The NRC's draft Strategic Plan also reflects the changes taking place in the regulatory environment associated with the use of radioactive materials, such as the expected receipt of applications to construct and operate new nuclear power plants, and the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Further, the draft Strategic Plan addresses how the NRC will address these challenges, such as communications, human capital, and regulatory and organizational infrastructure. The draft Strategic Plan identifies our two strategic goals, which focus on safety and security. The agency's Safety and Security goals, as well as their associated strategic outcomes, continue to accurately describe the agency's core functions, and therefore remain essentially unchanged. This focus on safety and security ensures that the NRC remains a strong independent, stable, and predictable regulator. The draft Strategic Plan also describes the agency's Organizational Excellence Objectives of Openness, Effectiveness, Timeliness, and Management, which characterize the manner in which the agency intends to support achieving the Safety and Security goals. The NRC encourages all interested parties to comment on the draft Strategic Plan. The comment period ends September 7, 2007. Comments on the draft plan are to be submitted in electronic format (Microsoft Word) using e-mail to: *StratPlan@nrc.gov* or mailed to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, mail Stop T6-D59, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; or faxed to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch at
(301)415-5144. Stakeholder feedback will be valuable in helping the Commission develop a final plan that has the benefit of the many views in the regulated civilian nuclear industry. The final version of NUREG-1614, Volume 4, is expected to be released on or about December 31, 2007. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leslie W. Barnett, Director, Division of Planning, Budget, and Analysis, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15479 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56186; File No. SR-BSE-2006-56] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto To Add to the Boston Options Exchange a New Functionality Called an Auto Auction Order August 2, 2007. I. Introduction On December 15, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) Rules to add a new functionality referred to as an Auto Auction Order (“AAO”) to make it easier for customers to participate in a price improvement auction (“Improvement Auction”). On February 1, 2007, BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on February 12, 2007. 3 The Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposal. 4 BSE filed a response to the comment letter on June 8, 2007. 5 On June 8, 2007, BSE filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55233 (February 2, 2007), 72 FR 6626 (“Notice”). 4 *See* letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Michael J. Simon, Secretary, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), dated March 5, 2007 (“ISE Letter”). 5 *See* letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from William Meehan, General Counsel, BSE, dated June 8, 2007 (“BSE Letter”). 6 In Amendment No. 2, BSE amended the proposal to reflect that AAOs may be entered only for Public Customer accounts and only in a series for which the standard trading increment is greater than one cent. BSE also made corresponding technical changes to the rule text. II. Description of the Proposal BSE proposes to amend the BOX Rules to add a new order functionality called an AAO that would automatically participate in any Improvement Auction ( *e.g.* , Price Improvement Period (“PIP”) auction) 7 if it meets certain criteria. An AAO is a Limit Order that is submitted by an Order Flow Provider (“OFP”) 8 on behalf of a Public Customer 9 to the BOX Trading Host in one-cent increments in a series whose minimum trading increment is greater than one cent. The penny incremented limit price that is entered by the Public Customer is referred to as the “AAO Maximum Improvement Price.” The AAO Maximum Improvement Price is the maximum (if the order is to buy) or minimum (if the order is to sell) price at which the Public Customer is willing to trade in any Improvement Auction. 7 *See* Chapter V, Section 18 of the BOX Rules. 8 “Order Flow Provider” is defined as an Options Participant representing as agent Customer Orders on BOX and those non-Market Maker Participants conducting proprietary trading. *See* Chapter I, Section 1(a)(46) of the BOX Rules. 9 “Public Customer” is defined a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. *See* Chapter I, Section 1(a)(50) of the BOX Rules. The BOX Trading Host will round AAOs to the nearest minimum trading increment (up if the order is to sell and down if the order is to buy) and place it on the BOX Book (“AAO Limit Order”). The AAO Limit Order will be processed as a standard Limit Order as described in Chapter 5, Section 14(c)(i) of the BOX Rules and will be traded in accordance with Chapter 5, Section 16 of the BOX Rules. A. Eligibility An AAO will be eligible to participate in any Improvement Auction that may occur when the AAO is on the opposite side of the market from the order seeking improvement and the AAO Limit Price is equal to the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). If the AAO is eligible, the BOX trading engine will automatically create a new order (the “AAO Improvement Order”) at the end of the auction phase, but prior to any trade allocations, with the following terms:
(1)The quantity of the AAO Improvement Order will be the lesser of the remaining quantity on the BOX Book at the AAO Limit Price or the quantity of the order seeking improvement in the auction; and
(2)the price of the AAO Improvement Order will be equal to the price of the best Improvement Order, Primary Improvement Order, or unrelated order (on the same side of the market as the AAO) submitted to the Improvement Auction. B. Trade Processing of AAO During an Improvement Auction, if the number of contracts executed in the Improvement Auction against the AAO Improvement Order is less than the quantity of the AAO Limit Order, then, prior to the processing of any other orders in the same series on the opposite side of the market as the AAO Limit Order, the quantity of the AAO Limit Order will be decremented on the BOX Book by the size of the executed quantity of the AAO Improvement Order. Any residual quantity that remains after part of an AAO has traded (either on the BOX Book or in the Improvement Auction) will continue to be eligible to trade in any subsequent Improvement Auctions. In addition, the residual quantity will maintain its priority on the BOX Book in accordance with Chapter V, Section 16 of the BOX Rules. Any AAO Improvement Order created by the BOX Trading Host will be assigned the time priority of the related AAO Limit Order. As such, the AAO Improvement Order is granted time priority at its relevant price level in an Improvement Auction. Any modification to the AAO Maximum Improvement Price that causes the rounded AAO Limit Price to change or any increase in the quantity of the AAO will cause a new time priority to be assigned to the AAO Limit Order on the BOX Book. Any changes to the AAO Maximum Improvement Price that do not effect the AAO Limit Price will not cause a change to the time priority of the original order. Additionally, a new AAO received in a particular series that is on the opposite side of the market from another AAO, which is already on the BOX Book, and is marketable at the AAO Maximum Improvement Price of the other booked AAO ( *e.g.* , a buy AAO is on the BOX Book with a Limit Price bid of $2.00 with an AAO Maximum Improvement Price of $2.03 and a new sell AAO is received by the BOX Trading Host with an AAO Maximum Improvement Price of $2.02), will be matched at the mid-point of the two AAO Maximum Improvement Prices, rounded to the nearest penny increment in the favor of the AAO that is already on the BOX Book. 10 The quantity of the resulting trade will be for the lesser quantity of the two AAOs. 10 The Commission notes that a non-AAO incoming order that is marketable at the AAO Limit Price will execute against the AAO at the displayed Limit Price. III. 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-BSE-2006-56 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-BSE-2006-56. 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 BSE. 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-BSE-2006-56 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2007. IV. Discussion After careful review of the amended proposal, the ISE Letter, and the BSE Letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 11 and, in particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act. 12 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 13 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. Significant aspects of the proposal are discussed below. 11 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). A. Order Exposure The proposal provides that the undisplayed penny price of an AAO resting on the BOX Book can execute against the undisplayed penny price of another AAO. 14 The commenter notes that other orders in the BOX marketplace, such as market orders and limit orders that are marketable against the displayed price of an AAO, would not receive the benefit of the hidden penny price. The commenter believes that the proposal thus provides a mechanism by which participants can cross orders on BOX with no exposure to the marketplace. 15 In response, BSE has amended its proposal to limit the use of the AAO to only Public Customers. 16 The Commission believes that the amended proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 17 14 *See* proposed Chapter V, Section 14(c)(v)(F) of the BOX Rules. 15 *See* ISE Letter, *supra* note 4, at 1-2. 16 *See* Amendment No. 2, *supra* note 6. 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Priority and Price Competition The commenter also argues that the AAO would not provide for additional price improvement opportunities, would discourage aggressive competition in the PIP, and would unfairly advantage the AAO in the PIP auction. First, the commenter contends that the AAO would not provide for any increased opportunities for price improvement in the PIP because the AAO Improvement Order would be generated at the conclusion of the three second exposure period (and thus not be broadcast to other BOX Participants) and would only match the best price provided by other BOX participants, even if the AAO contained an AAO Maximum Improvement Price that would provide additional price improvement to the PIP order. 18 Second, the commenter believes that the proposal will discourage other BOX Participants from competing aggressively for PIP orders because it provides time priority for the AAO Improvement Order in the PIP based upon the entry time of the original AAO. Third, the commenter argues that the AAO is unfairly advantaged in the PIP auction because only through use of an AAO can a participant adjust the price at which they are willing to participate in the PIP auction without other participants knowing about its interest and still maintain its initial time priority. 19 18 *See* ISE Letter, *supra* note 4, at 2. 19 *See* ISE Letter, *supra* note 4, at 3. As noted above, an AAO would not lose its initial time priority if there are changes to the initial penny order price, so long as the change does not affect the displayed limit order price. *See* proposed Chapter V, Section 14(c)(v)(E) of the BOX Rules. In response, BSE argues that the AAO will provide increased price improvement opportunities because it would increase the size available at the best Improvement Order price. 20 Further, BSE argues that the AAO will encourage aggressive quoting in the PIP by incenting competitors to put forth their best price to potentially better the AAO Maximum Improvement Price and thus increase their likelihood of allocation. In addition, BSE analogizes the AAO to BOX's Customer PIP Order, 21 which also is displayed on the BOX Book at a standard increment but contains a penny price that is not broadcast to PIP participants. 22 BSE represents that the AAO functionality is being proposed to make it easier for customers to participate in an Improvement Auction, especially non-professional customers who lack the ability to monitor and adjust prices fast enough to be competitive, and who may not have access to a broker that utilizes the CPO function. BSE therefore believes that the AAO functionality will increase competition in the PIP because it will allow more new entrants. Additionally, BSE notes that since Public Customer orders already have priority status in Improvement Auctions pursuant to customer priority rules, the AAO will only incrementally increase the priority available to them. 23 20 *See* BSE Letter, *supra* note 5, at 2. 21 *See* Securities Exchange Release No. 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004). 22 *See* BSE Letter, *supra* note 5, at 2. 23 *See* BSE Letter, *supra* note 5, at 3. The Commission agrees that the availability of the AAO should increase the ability of Public Customers to participate in Improvement Auctions. 24 The Commission also does not believe that the possibility of undisclosed AAO penny interest will give Improvement Auction participants a disincentive to enter their best prices and may provide a further incentive to enter their best prices to increase the likelihood of participating in the execution of the order. Further, the AAO functionality provides the potential for increased size available at the best Improvement Price. The Commission therefore believes that the AAO functionality is consistent with the Act. 24 BSE represents that only a few OFPs have made CPOs available to non-professional customers due, in large part, to the constraints that are generally associated with the software development an OFP is required to undertake to handle the processing of the CPO. *See* Notice, *supra* note 3. The Commission further notes that an AAO Limit Order would only be eligible to participate in an Improvement Auction, and thus receive time priority, when the AAO Limit Order equals the NBBO on the opposite side of the Improvement Auction order at the start of the auction. The AAO is similar to the Market Maker Prime (“MMP”) designation in the PIP, in which a market maker that has a quote at the moment the PIP commences that is equal to the NBBO on the same side as the PIP Primary Improvement Order is eligible to be designated MMP for that particular PIP auction and receive priority over other Improvement Orders in the auction. 25 The Commission believes that the proposal to give time priority to an AAO that quotes aggressively before an Improvement Order is initiated is consistent with the Act and may provide a further incentive for Public Customers to publicly display their best prices, which would benefit all options market participants. 25 The MMP who participates in a PIP will have partial priority over all other competing orders, including the AAO, entered into the PIP at the same limit price. *See* Chapter V, Section 19(b) of the BOX Rules. C. Penny Pilot The commenter argues that the Penny Pilot Program 26 is the appropriate method to approach penny pricing in the options markets, rather than a mechanism that bypasses auction market principles. 27 As discussed above, with respect to the commenter's substantive arguments, the Commission believes the AAO functionality is consistent with the Act. Further, the Commission notes that the proposal, as amended, is intended to make it easier for Public Customers to participate in the PIP (or other future Improvement Auctions), which already allows trading in penny increments. In addition, pursuant to the amended proposal, AAOs may only be entered in series that are limited to quoting in standard increments greater than one cent. The Commission believes it is consistent with the Act to allow BSE to implement another initiative designed to allow limited *trading* in penny increments at the same time it participates in the Penny Pilot Program. 26 The Penny Pilot was approved by the Commission to allow BOX to permit certain option classes to be quoted in pennies on a pilot basis. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55155 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2007) (SR-BSE-2006-49). 27 *See* ISE Letter, *supra* note 4, at 3. D. Accelerated Approval The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposal prior to the thirtieth day after the proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** . The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for full notice and comment. 28 Amendment No. 2, which limits the AAO functionality to Public Customer accounts, and in a series for which the standard trading increment is greater than one cent, modifies the proposal in response to issues raised by a commenter. For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 28 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 29 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2006-56), as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 29 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 30 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15431 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56185; File No. SR-BSE-2007-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify How the BOX Trading Host Systematically Filters All Orders Against the National Best Bid and Offer August 2, 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 July 30, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a non-controversial rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 30 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). 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 The Exchange proposes to amend the rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) to clarify how the BOX Trading Host systematically filters all orders against the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) to ensure that a trade-through to the detriment of the inbound order does not occur, and that the customer's interests are protected by making sure that any execution of its order on BOX is at a price at least as good as the best price available on any of the other options exchanges. The proposed rule filing also seeks to clarify how BOX currently processes such orders when the NBBO is either locked or crossed. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below; new text is in *italics* and deleted text is in brackets. RULES OF THE BOSTON OPTIONS EXCHANGE FACILITY Chapter V Sec. 16 Execution and Price/Time Priority (a)—No change.
(b)Filtering of BOX In-Bound Orders [to Prevent Trade-Throughs]. i. *With the exception of Improvement Orders and Primary Improvement Orders submitted during a PIP (which are processed in accordance with section 18 of this Chapter V) and Directed Orders (which are processed in accordance with section 5, subsections b and c, of Chapter VI)* [A] *a* ll inbound orders to BOX (whether on behalf of Customers, non-BOX Participant broker-dealer proprietary accounts or market makers at other exchanges) as well as inbound Principal (“P”) and Principal as Agent (“P/A”) (see Chapter XII, “Intermarket Linkage Rules”, herein) orders received via InterMarket Linkage will be filtered by the Trading Host prior to entry on the BOX Book to ensure that these orders will not [execute at price outside the current NBBO (“trade-throughs”).] *:* *1) in the case of a sell order, execute at a price below the NBBO bid price* *-or-* *2) in the case of a buy order, execute at a price above the NBBO offer price.* *All of the filtering rules described in this section are independent of whether the NBBO is locked or crossed or not, except where the BOX best price on the same side of the market as the inbound order has crossed, or is crossed by, the opposite side NBBO, the order will be routed, if eligible, or rejected immediately.* ii.-iv.—No change. 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 the proposed rule change is to amend the BOX Rules to describe how the BOX Trading Host systematically filters all orders against the NBBO to ensure that a trade-through to the detriment of the inbound order does not occur. The proposal also describes how customers' interests are protected by making sure that any execution of his order on BOX is at a price at least as good as the best price available on any of the other options exchanges. BOX's responsibility to the inbound customer or broker-dealer order is to ensure that its execution is at the best price available across all markets at that moment. Presently, BOX processes trades irrespective of whether the NBBO is locked, crossed, or “normal.” As a result of this practice, there is the potential to cause a trade-through. The purpose of this rule filing is to amend the BOX rules to recognize that only the price on the side of the NBBO opposite to the inbound order needs to be taken into account when filtering inbound orders, regardless of whether the NBBO is locked, crossed, or “normal,” and regardless of whether BOX is presently part of the NBBO on the opposite side from the order. The Exchange has obtained exemptive relief for any trade-throughs that occur as a result of this practice. 5 5 *See* letter from Elizabeth K. King, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to John Katovich, Chief Legal Officer, Exchange, dated July 30, 2007. *See also* letter from John Katovich, Chief Legal Officer, Exchange, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated July 30, 2007. The following examples illustrate BOX's proposed processing of NBBO filtering: *Example 1:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.00 2.10 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order executed at 2.00 on BOX. *Example 2:* 6 Exposure time will be set according to the NBBO Exposure time period as referenced in the BOX Rules. *See* BOX Rules, Chapter V, Section 16(b)(iii). Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.00 2.10 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 20 “at market.” Inbound sell order executed for 10 at 2.00 on BOX. The remaining ten are exposed 6 internally at 2.00 and, if not executed, will be routed to the exchange disseminating the best price or rejected to sender. *Example 3:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.05 2.10 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order exposed internally at 2.05 on BOX; and if not executed, will be routed to the exchange disseminating the best price or rejected to sender. *Example 4:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.00 2.00 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order executed at 2.00 on BOX since this is best price available nationally for a seller. *Example 5:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.05 2.05 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order exposed internally at 2.05 on BOX; and if not executed, will be routed to the exchange disseminating the best price or rejected to sender. *Example 6:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.00 1.95 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order executed at 2.00 on BOX since this is best price available nationally for a seller. *Example 7:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.00 1.95 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 20 “at market.” Inbound sell order executed for 10 at 2.00 on BOX since this is best price available nationally for a seller. The remaining 10 are exposed internally at 2.00, and if not executed, will be routed to the exchange disseminating the best price or rejected to sender. *Example 8:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.05 1.95 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order exposed internally at 2.05 on BOX; if not executed, will be routed to the exchange disseminating the best price or rejected to sender. In the following example (Example 9), the BOX best price on the same side of the market as the inbound order is crossed by the opposite side NBBO. In this particular case, it is impractical to expose the inbound executable order at the opposite NBBO as in the previous examples since BOX is already showing a better offer (of 2.10 versus the NBBO exposure price of 2.15) with which nobody has traded. In this unique circumstance (where the same side BBO on BOX is crossed by the opposite side NBBO), BOX will immediately route the order to the exchange disseminating the best price, if possible, or reject the order back to the sender. *Example 9:* Bid Offer BOX 10 @ 2.00 20 @ 2.10 NBBO 2.15 2.05 BOX Trading Host receives an order to sell 10 “at market.” Inbound sell order routed immediately to the exchange disseminating the best price at 2.15 or rejected back to sender. As illustrated by the above examples, the BOX NBBO filtering process ensures that a sell order is never executed on BOX at a price inferior to the best bid available at the other options exchanges; similarly, any order to buy an option would not be executed on BOX at price worse than the best offer available elsewhere at that moment. BOX believes that in the case of a crossed NBBO, it is in the inbound customer order's interest to execute at the best price on the opposite side of the NBBO on BOX, where possible, as this is much quicker than routing to an away exchange. In connection with proposed rule change, the Exchange has respectfully requested an exemption, pursuant to Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, from the requirement of Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS that the Exchange comply with and enforce compliance by its members with the requirements of Section 8(c) of the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Options Linkage (“the Plan”) in the limited circumstance where a trade-through occurs due to an execution when the NBBO is crossed by the disseminated market of another options exchange, or BOX's disseminated market crosses the NBBO, and BOX's price 7 on the opposite side of the market for the incoming order establishes, or is equal to, the NBBO. To the same extent and subject to the same limitations, the Exchange has requested exemptive relief from the requirement in Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS that the Exchange comply with section 4(b) of the Plan by enforcing compliance by its members with the provisions of section 8(c) of the Plan. The Commission has granted the requested exemption. 8 7 BOX's price could be either BOX's disseminated price or it could be a Participant response to the exposure of the incoming order pursuant to Chapter V, Section 16(b) of BOX Rules. Therefore, an incoming order during a crossed market must execute at a price equal to the NBBO on the opposite side of the incoming order. 8 *See supra* note 5. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest by clarifying how the BOX Trading Host systematically filters all orders against the NBBO to ensure that a trade-through to the detriment of the inbound order does not occur. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 12 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing so that the Exchange can clarify the conditions under which BOX provides automatic executions during times of crossed markets, thus allowing the maximum potential number of orders to be handled electronically on the Exchange. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business before doing so. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 13 Waiving the delay will allow the Exchange's clarifications of the operation of the BOX Trading Host's filtering of orders against the NBBO to become operative immediately. Waiving the delay will also allow the proposal to become operative simultaneously with the trade-through exemption granted to the Exchange as of July 30, 2007, 14 the date the proposed rule change was filed. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 *See supra* note 5. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-BSE-2007-39 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-39. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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-BSE-2007-39 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15434 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56182; File No. SR-FICC-2006-19] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Membership, Definitions, and the Electronic Pool Notification Service August 1, 2007. I. Introduction On December 13, 2006, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 2 to restructure FICC's Government Securities Division's (“GSD”) membership standards and membership requirements, update various definitions, and make technical changes to GSD's rules and to FICC's Mortgage-Backed Securities Division's (“MBSD”) Electronic Pool Notification (“EPN”) rules. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 29, 2007. 3 No comment letters were received on the proposal. This order approves the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55515 (Mar. 22, 2006), 72 FR 14839. II. Description of the Proposal A. Membership Rules FICC is revising its rules concerning membership types, the membership application process, and the ongoing requirements of GSD members into a format that FICC believes will make such rules easier to locate and to understand by applicants and members. To accomplish this, FICC is amending current Rule 2 (retitled “Members”), is moving much of the content of current Rule 2 into a new Rule 2A (“Initial Membership Requirements”), and is revising Rule 3 (retitled “Ongoing Membership Requirements”). Other rules and provisions are being modified to make technical corrections where necessary and to be in harmony with analogous rules of FICC's affiliated clearing agency, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). 1. Membership Types FICC's current Rule 2 (“Comparison-Only and Netting Members”) sets forth the types of GSD memberships, eligibility requirements, application procedures, and member reporting requirements. FICC is revising Rule 2 to establish each GSD membership type: Comparison-Only Members, Netting Members, Sponsoring Members, Sponsored Members, and Funds-Only Settling Bank Members. Substantially all other provisions contained in the current Rule 2 are being moved to either new Rule 2A or revised Rule 3. One exception to this is that FICC is deleting current Rule 2, Section 4 (“Financial Reports by Netting Applicants). FICC states that the rationale for such deletion is that FICC already advises applicants during the application process of the required financial reports depending on the category of membership for which is being applied and on the applicant entity type. In addition, FICC is setting forth in revised Rule 3 the financial reports that must be submitted by members to FICC on an ongoing basis. FICC is also deleting section 1(f) of Rule 2, which provides that applicants that have been approved for membership must execute and deliver to FICC a membership agreement. This provision is redundant with existing Rule 2, Section 3, which will now appear in new Rule 2A, Section 7. 2. Consolidation of Membership Standards and Requirements Prior to this rule change, the membership qualifications, financial standards, and operational requirements for each membership type were set forth in Rule 2 (“Comparison-Only and Netting Members”), Rule 3 (“Financial Responsibility, Operational Capability and Other Membership Standards of Comparison-Only and Netting Members”), and Rule 4 (“Clearing Fund, Watch List and Loss Allocation”). To consolidate this information, FICC is creating a new Rule 2A (“Initial Membership Requirements”) that will establish the initial membership eligibility requirements for all membership types and will set forth the process of membership application and evaluation. In addition, FICC is restructuring Rule 3 (“Ongoing Membership Requirements”) to contain all current GSD rule provisions regarding the continuing requirements of members. The restructuring will encompass three substantive changes:
(a)*Immediate Placement on the Watch List.* FICC is deleting current Rule 3, Section 1(d)(iii) that automatically disqualifies an applicant from becoming a member if the applicant is subject to any action or condition, the existence of which would require the applicant to be placed on FICC's Watch List if it were already a member. FICC believes that eliminating such provision will not diminish FICC's ability to deny membership to an unworthy applicant because FICC will still retain under other sections of its rules the discretion to deny membership based on the applicant's underlying financial, operational, or character issues. Moreover, FICC's credit risk matrix enables FICC to place such applicant directly on FICC's watch list for closer monitoring.
(b)*Additional Reporting Requirements.* FICC is adding new language to proposed Rule 3, Section 2 (“Reports by Netting Members”) that will require members to provide FICC with
(i)reports from their independent auditors on internal controls [in revised Rule 3, Section 2(b)(ii)] and
(ii)a copy of any letter granting an extension of time by a regulatory authority to a member with respect to the submission of a report [in revised Rule 3, Section 2(h), para. 2].
(c)*Annual Audited Financial Statements.* FICC is removing the current requirement in Rule 2, Section 4(a) that audited annual financial statements submitted by netting members be “without qualification.” FICC believes that a qualification in an annual audited financial statement should not warrant automatic denial of membership because a qualification may not always be material. In addition, the event that triggered a qualification may have been corrected by the applicant or member by the time the applicant or member submits its financial statement for review by FICC. Going forward, FICC will analyze qualifications in GSD netting member financial statements on a case-by-case basis. Other conforming and non-substantive changes are being made within the rules to accommodate this restructuring and to update cross-references where applicable. B. Non-Substantive Changes and Technical Corrections 1. Definition of “Person” FICC is amending the current definition of Person contained in GSD Rule 1 (“Definitions”) to indicate that the term will be used throughout the rules to mean a partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation, or other organization, entity, or individual. 2. Definition of “Eligible Security” FICC is amending the definition of Eligible Security to make clear that any security of an issuer that is on the Office of Foreign Assets and Control's (“OFAC”) Specially Designated Nationals list or a security from a country that is subject to OFAC sanctions may not be an eligible security at GSD. FICC is making the same change to the definition of Eligible Security in MBSD's Clearing and EPN rules. 3. Definition of “Bond Market Association” The Bond Market Association is now known as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. GSD is removing the definition of and references to The Bond Market Association from its rules and is replacing it with a definition for and references to The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. 4. Governing Law Provision FICC is clarifying the Governing Law provision contained in GSD's and MBSD's Clearing and EPN rules to state that the Clearing and EPN rules of GSD and MBSD are subject to New York law as applicable to contracts executed and performed in New York. 5. Insurance Company Netting Member Eligibility Requirements FICC is removing from GSD's rules the eligibility requirements for Insurance Company Netting Members because GSD does not currently have any such members. FICC will, however, retain the definition of Insurance Company Netting Member in its rules in the event that such an entity applies for membership in the future. Appropriate eligibility requirements would be reviewed at that time and proposed as additions to the rules. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 17A(b)(3)(F), 4 which, among other things, requires the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. In addition to making the rules more logically structured, more consistent with the rules of FICC's clearing agency affiliate, and less redundant, the proposal should improve FICC's ability to responsibly administer its membership application process by providing FICC with a more flexible and risk-based approach to review applications for membership. Although FICC is eliminating certain factors that would previously have resulted in the automatic disqualification of an applicant, FICC has retained explicit rights to deny membership to an unworthy applicant based upon FICC's qualitative review, based in part on new required documentation, of an applicant's underlying financial, operational, or character issues. Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with FICC's obligation to assure ability to safeguard securities and funds in its possession or control or for which it is responsible. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act 5 and the rules and regulations thereunder. 5 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 6 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2006-19) be, and hereby is, approved. 7 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 7 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15371 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56184; File No. SR-NSCC-2007-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees Charged for Its Positions and Valuations Service August 2, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on May 11, 2007, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 2 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder 3 so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce the fees that NSCC charges for its Positions and Valuations service (“POV”), which is part of the Insurance and Retirement Processing Service (“IPS”) effective July 1, 2007. 4 4 The Insurance and Retirement Processing Service was formerly called the Insurance Processing Service. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 5 5 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by NSCC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce the fees that NSCC charges for its POV service effective July 1, 2007. The transaction fees schedule for the IPS POV service is tiered according to the numbers of transaction processed. The following chart shows the current fees and the proposed reduced fees. POV position records Current (items) Proposed (items) From 0 to 500,000 items per month $8.00 per 1,000 $ no change. From 500,001 to 2,000,000 items per month $4.50 per 1,000 $4.00 per 1,000. From 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 items per month $3.75 per 1,000 $3.00 per 1,000. For 4,000,001 or more items per month $3.50 per 1,000 $2.00 per 1,000. These fees are being reduced due to an increase in volume and revenue in NSCC's IPS over recent years which has resulted in excess revenue for these services. The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of dues fees and other charges among NSCC members and aligns fees for services with the associated cost to deliver the service. 6 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 8 thereunder because the rule establishes a due, fee, or other charge. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission could have summarily abrogated such rule change if it appeared to the Commission that such action was necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 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-NSCC-2007-10 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-NSCC-2007-10. 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. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NSCC, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nscc.com/legal/2007/2007-10.pdf.* 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-NSCC-2007-10 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2007. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15433 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56183; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Rule 103B (“Specialist Stock Allocation”) August 2, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 20, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” 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 NYSE. NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on July 20, 2007. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing with the Commission an amendment to Rule 103B (“Specialist Stock Allocation”) to permit specialist member organizations to trade Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”) in a specialist capacity while at the same time registered as a specialist in securities which are a component thereof, subject to Exchange approval of policies and procedures demonstrably isolating information regarding the respective issues. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 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 When approved by the Commission on May 7, 2001, 3 section VIII of Rule 103B prohibited member organizations from applying for allocation of an ETF where such member organization was already registered as a specialist in any component security of such ETF, and conversely that where a member organization is already registered as a specialist in an ETF and a security in which it is also registered as a specialist becomes a component security of such ETF, the member organization must withdraw one or the other of such registrations or establish a separate member organization for the ETF. The Exchange explained the reason for this separation: 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44272 (May 7, 2001), 66 FR 26898 (May 15, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-07). This restriction is necessary to avoid the possibility of “wash sales” in a situation where the specialist in the ETF needs to hedge by buying or selling component stock of the ETF, and could inadvertently be trading with a proprietary bid or offer made by a specialist in the same member organization who is making a market in the component security. 4 4 *Id.* at 26900. The rule amendment proposed a solution to the problem by providing that member organizations could conduct the ETF activities in a separate member organization. The Exchange states that, while concerns regarding wash sales in the context of ETF and component security trading remain real, the costs and expenses of maintaining two separate member organizations, both to the member organization 5 and to the Exchange, 6 are seen to strongly recommend a second resolution of this problem. 5 Because of the requirement for two separate organizations, firms are required to have two broker-dealer registrations, file separate monthly financial reports, support two accounting and compliance departments, and maintain separate management and reporting structures. 6 In 2005, the Exchange estimated that approximately 2,100 examiner hours were devoted to the examination of ETF specialists. Such numbers would be sharply reduced if member organizations were allowed, as proposed, to include such functions within the same organization, as the combination of activities in one entity instead of two would, by its nature, reduce the member organizations examined and eliminate review of duplicative functions. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to permit member organizations, subject to Exchange approval, to establish policies and procedures to isolate 7 the activities of such member organization in the trading of ETFs and any component securities in which it may be registered, thus eliminating the required redundancies and attendant expense inherent in the current rule requirement for separate firms. Such policies and procedures must, at a minimum, include information barriers that prevent the flow of non-public information between a member organization's ETF specialist on the one hand and the member organization's specialist in an associated component security on the other hand. 7 *See,* for example, comparable provisions of NYSE Information Memo 91-22 (June 21, 1991), the NASD/NYSE Joint Memo on Chinese Wall Policies and Procedures for procedural structures to assure the effective containment of trading information. The Exchange states that its Division of Member Firm Regulation has a Chinese Wall examination program to evaluate the integrity of information barriers to ensure confidentiality of trading information among the various trading departments at its member firms and their approved persons and will adapt it to the review of specialist firms also trading ETFs along with component securities. These information barriers are, and will continue to be, tested and reviewed on site for breaches and weaknesses by Exchange examination staff on an annual basis and for cause, when warranted. To determine whether the firm has developed and implemented adequate information barriers between its Specialist Equity and ETF Trading Operations, examiners will review, on-site, the combined specialist firm's written policies and procedures and physical layout for adequacy. In addition, appropriate individuals both within the affected departments as well as other areas of the specialist firm will be interviewed to determine whether firm policies have been appropriately disseminated and implemented. Also, the examiners will test member organization controls and will determine, based upon their review, whether the firm's relevant information barriers and related policies and procedures are adequate to preclude the improper sharing of trading information (both equity and ETF) and whether there have been any apparent breaches of those barriers. In addition, the Exchange will periodically assess its surveillance and examination procedures to determine whether they are adequate to assure that member organizations and market participants do not engage in manipulative or improper trading. The Exchange believes that these measures will assure the adequate and appropriate surveillance of the single member organization permitted by the proposed amendments. The isolation of trading activities acts to address the issue of “wash sales” in the context of ETF and component securities. The rule does not, however, prohibit usual and customary sharing of information regarding trades after the fact, and so allows appropriate risk and hedging activity, treasury management and other such similar activities. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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-NYSE-2007-42 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-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, 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-NYSE-2007-42 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-15432 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56178; File No. SR-OC-2007-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Block Trade and EFP Transaction Reporting Procedures August 1, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-7 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 20, 2007, OneChicago, LLC (“OneChicago” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. The Exchange has also filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), together with a written certification under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 3 on July 19, 2007. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-7. 3 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule Change OneChicago is proposing to amend its policies and procedures relating to the reporting of block trades and Exchange of Futures for Physical (“EFP”) transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on OneChicago's Web site ( *http://onechicago.com* ), at OneChicago'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 The Exchange has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from its members, participants, and others. 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, Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose OneChicago proposes to amend its Block Trade Reporting Procedures (“Block Reporting Procedures”) and its EFP Transactions: Guidelines and Reporting Procedures (“EFP Reporting Procedures”) to permit reporting of block trades and EFP transactions through the OneChicago Block & EFP Trading System (“OneChicago BETS”). In addition, OneChicago proposes to make conforming changes to OneChicago Policies: Block Trades, Pre-Execution Discussions and Cross Trades (“Block Trade Policy”). OneChicago BETS permits authorized traders to trade and report block trades, as well as match and report EFP transactions electronically. 4 The proposed rule change would add language to the Block Reporting Procedures that would permit those authorized to report block trades to do so through OneChicago BETS, telephonically as permitted by the Exchange, or in a form and method approved by OneChicago. In addition, the proposed rule change would amend the provision of the Block Reporting Procedures that requires the selling firm to call the OneChicago Operations Management (“OOM”) Help Desk for block trades reported telephonically by allowing the counterparty to agree to a different reporting arrangement. A similar change to the Block Reporting Procedures is proposed for the reporting of blocks that are spreads or combinations. The proposed rule change would also amend the footnote to the Block Reporting Procedures to delete “500,” currently the stated minimum contract size, and add a cross-reference to the minimum contract size specified in the Block Trade Policy. Under the proposed rule change, the total quantity of the legs of a spread or combination must continue to meet the minimum contract size requirement as stated in the Block Trade Policy. 4 OneChicago BETS also permits electronic trading and reporting of Block Roll trades, a block trade where a trader enters into a calendar spread. The amendments to the EFP Reporting Procedures would add language to make it clear that entering into an EFP via OneChicago BETS would fulfill the requirement to complete an EFP Transaction Report in a form and manner approved by the Exchange. Under the proposed rule change, if a transaction is matched by OneChicago BETS, then the party that traded against the resting bid or offer (the “Aggressor”) would be obligated to enter the base price into OneChicago BETS from which a futures price would be generated by adding the matched differential. 5 If the transaction is an EFP that is only reported on OneChicago BETS ( *i.e.* , a Bi-lateral transaction), then either party to the transaction may enter the information into OneChicago BETS, and the counter-party trader must confirm the transaction on OneChicago BETS. 5 EFPs on BETS are quoted in spreads. The futures price is calculated by adding the quoted spread to the base price negotiated by the parties. The proposed rule change would also eliminate the requirement in the EFP Reporting Procedures that the parties to the transaction exchange their respective Trade Reporter IDs and agree upon a unique trade ID to be used when recording the terms of their trade. Since the Exchange has the Trade Reporter IDs and provides a unique trade ID for each trade, it is no longer necessary to have the Trade Reporters exchange and create such IDs. Conforming language was also added to clarify that the OOM Help Desk will only compare the details on trades that are not reported through OneChicago BETS. Conforming changes are also proposed for the Block Trade Policy. Thus, under the proposal, the buyer of a block trade could agree that the seller is not obligated to report a block trade; language requiring the OOM Help Desk to provide a trade identification and requiring traders to provide the OOM Help Desk trade identification when reporting a block trade would be deleted; and new language would be added to make clear that OOM Help Desk would only report block trades reported to them telephonically to the OneChicago trade engine. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general and section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it is 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. The proposed rule change would permit electronic reporting of block trades and EFP transactions, which would promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest by providing more efficient reporting of block trades and EFPs and by providing a strong audit trail. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition OneChicago 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. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Pursuant to section 19(b)(7)(B) of the Act, 8 the proposed rule change became effective on July 20, 2007. Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be re-filed in accordance with the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Act. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)(B). 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-OC-2007-03 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-OC-2007-03. 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 Commissions 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-OC-2007-03 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73). Florence E. Harmon. Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15384 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Small Business Administration Region X Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)Region X Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a National Regulatory Fairness Hearing on Thursday, August 23, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. The forum will take place at the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, 250 S. 5th Street, Basement Conference Center, Boise, ID 83701. The purpose of the meeting is for Business Organizations, Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their members. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Tom Bergdoll, in writing or by fax in order to be placed on the agenda. Tom Bergdoll, District Director, SBA, Idaho District Office, 380 East Parkcenter Boulevard, Suite 330, Boise, ID 83706, phone
(208)334-9004, Ext. 325 and fax
(202)481-5840, e-mail: *Thomas.bergdoll@sba.gov* . For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman* . Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15406 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region VIII Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)Region VIII Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a National Regulatory Fairness Hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. The forum will take place at the Montana State University Billings, College of Professional Studies and Lifelong Learning, 2804 3rd Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101. The purpose of the meeting is for Business Organizations, Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their members. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Rena Carlson, in writing or by fax in order to be placed on the agenda. Rena Carlson, Business Development Specialist, SBA, Montana District Office, 10 West 15th Street, Suite 1100, Helena, MT 59626, phone
(406)441-1086 and fax
(202)481-4195, e-mail: *Lorena.carlson@sba.gov.* For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15408 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. OST-07-28901] Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT)intention to request extension of a previously approved information collection. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number OST-07-28901) by any of the following methods: • Web Site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notes. • *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to the West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Shields, Business Policy Division, M-61, Office of the Senior Procurement Executive, Office of the Secretary,
(202)366-4268. Refer to OMB Control Number 2105-0531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations. *OMB Control Number:* 2105-0531. *Type of Request:* Extension without change, of a previously approved collection. *Abstract:* The requested extension of the approved control number covers the information and collection requirements imposed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, which the Department of Transportation codified at 49 CFR part 19. The information collected, retained and provided by the nonprofit grantees is required to ensure grantee eligibility and their conformance with Federally mandated reporting requirements. OMB provides management and oversight of the circular. OMB also provides for a standard figure of seventy burden hours per grantee annually for completion of required forms. This collection covers only those DOT programs that utilize the standard OMB forms SF 269, SF 270, SF 271, SF 272 and SF 424. *Respondents:* Individuals or households and business or others for profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 150. *Estimated Total Burden on Respondents:* 10,500 hours. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)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;
(b)the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, 2007. David J. Litman, Senior Procurement Executive. [FR Doc. E7-15438 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. OST-07-28902] Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT)intention to request extension of a previously approved information collection. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number OST-07-28902) by any of the following methods: • Web Site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notes. • *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to the West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Shields, Business Policy Division, M-61, Office of the Senior Procurement Executive, Office of the Secretary,
(202)366-4268. Refer to OMB Control Number 2105-0520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Uniform Administrative Requirements For Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. *OMB Control Number:* 2105-0520. *Type of Request:* Extension without change, of a previously approved collection. *Abstract:* The requested extension of the approved control number covers the information and collection requirements imposed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments, which the Department of Transportation codified at 49 CFR part 18. The information collected, retained and provided by the State and local government grantees is required to ensure grantee eligibility and their conformance with Federally mandated reporting requirements. OMB provides management and oversight of the circular. OMB also provides for a standard figure of seventy burden hours per grantee for completion of required forms. This collection covers only those DOT programs that utilize the standard OMB forms SF 269, SF 270, SF 271, SF 272 and SF 424. *Respondents:* State and local governments receiving Federal financial assistance from the DOT. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,795. *Estimated Total Burden on Respondents:* 125,650 hours. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)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;
(b)the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, 2007. David J. Litman, Senior Procurement Executive. [FR Doc. E7-15439 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2007-31] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-28785 using any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas
(202)267-7626 or Frances Shaver
(202)267-9681, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2007-28785. *Petitioner:* United Parcel Service. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR 91.171. *Description of Relief Sought:* United Parcel Service Company
(UPS)is seeking relief from § 91.171 to the extent necessary to allow UPS to conduct domestic and international operations with its Boeing-747-400F and similarly equipped airplanes that have been subject to Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) analysis, by employing an approved alternative means of verifying very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR)equipment operating compliance. [FR Doc. E7-15388 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35070] Transtar, Inc.—Control Exemption—Texas and Northern Railway Company Transtar, Inc. (Transtar), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption to control Texas & Northern Railway Company (T&NR), a Class III rail carrier, as a result of Transtar's acquisition of all of T&NR's issued and outstanding stock (except certain qualifying shares) 1 from a subsidiary of Transtar's parent, United States Steel Corporation (USS). 1 Transtar will acquire 99.9% of the issued and outstanding stock of T&NR, with the balance of the stock, one qualifying share held by each of two directors of T&NR, as required by Texas law. The transaction will be consummated on or after August 22, 2007. USS, a noncarrier, owns all of the issued and outstanding stock of Transtar, which is a noncarrier holding company. Transtar in turn owns all of the issued and outstanding stock of one Class II carrier, the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, and the following five Class III carriers: Birmingham Southern Railroad Company; Delray Connecting Railroad Company; The Lake Terminal Railroad Company; McKeesport Connecting Railroad Company; and Union Railroad Company (collectively, the Transtar Railroads). USS acquired control of T&NR pursuant to a notice of exemption in *United States Steel Corporation—Acquisition of Control Exemption—Texas & Northern Railway Company,* STB Finance Docket No. 35027 (STB served May 25, 2007). 2 Transtar now seeks to acquire control of T&NR to consolidate all of the USS railroad subsidiaries under the mantle of Transtar. T&NR operates approximately 7.6 miles of main line track in Texas, extending from the former Lone Star Steel Company, LP facility at Lonestar, TX, and connecting with the Kansas City Southern Railway Company at the far north point of the Veals Yard. T&NR owns the Veals Yard and 32 miles of storage track. USS will cause its indirect subsidiary, LSS, to convey all of the issued and outstanding stock of T&NR, except the qualifying shares, to Transtar. 2 USS entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Lone Star Technologies, Inc.
(LST)pursuant to which USS would acquire certain of the subsidiaries of LST, including Lone Star Steel Company, LP (LSS). T&NR is a wholly owned subsidiary of LSS. The USS and LST transaction was consummated on June 14, 2007. Transtar represents and warrants that:
(i)T&NR does not connect with any of the Transtar Railroads;
(ii)the acquisition of control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect T&NR with any of the railroads in the Transtar corporate family; and
(iii)the transaction does not involve a Class I carrier. Transtar also represents and warrants that the transaction will not result in:
(i)Any adverse changes in service levels to the public;
(ii)significant operational changes; or
(iii)changes in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. *See* 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) and (3). Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interest of its employees. Because the transaction involves the control of one Class II and one or more Class III carriers, the exemption is subject to the labor protection requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11326(b). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petition to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. Any petition to revoke must be filed on or before August 15, 2007 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35070, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of all pleadings must be served on A. Bradley Cramer, Jr., United States Steel Corporation, 600 Grant Street, Room 1500, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2800; and John A. Vuono, Vuono & Gray, LLC, 310 Grant Street, Suite 2310, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: August 1, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15289 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35043] Four Rivers Transportation, Inc., Paducah and Louisville Railway, Inc., and Evansville Western Railway, Inc.—Corporate Family Transaction Exemption Four Rivers Transportation, Inc. (Four Rivers), Paducah & Louisville Railway, Inc. (P&L), and Evansville Western Railway, Inc.
(EVWR)(collectively, parties) have filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a transaction within a corporate family. The proposed transaction involves the restructuring of the Four Rivers corporate family. Four Rivers, a noncarrier, currently directly owns and controls P&L and the Appalachian & Ohio Railroad, Inc. (A&O). P&L directly owns and controls EVWR. Through P&L, Four Rivers indirectly controls EVWR. P&L is a Class II rail carrier that owns and operates approximately 262 miles of rail line, all within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and EVWR is a Class III rail carrier that operates approximately 124 miles of rail line in Illinois and Indiana. A&O is a Class III rail carrier that leases and operates over 158 miles of rail line, all located within West Virginia. 1 1 *See Paducah & Louisville Railway, Inc.—Acquisition—CSX Transportation, Inc.,* STB Finance Docket No. 34738 (STB served Nov. 18, 2005); *Evansville Western Railway, Inc.—Acquisition and Operation Exemption—Paducah & Louisville Railway, Inc.,* STB Finance Docket No. 34738 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Nov. 18, 2005); *Four Rivers Transportation, Inc. and Paducah & Louisville Railway, Inc.—Continuance in Control Exemption—Evansville Western Railway, Inc.,* STB Finance Docket No. 34738 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Nov. 18, 2005); and *Four Rivers Transportation, Inc.—Control Exemption—Appalachian & Ohio Railroad, Inc.,* STB Finance Docket No. 34856 (STB served May 23, 2006). The parties propose to consummate the transaction on or after August 23, 2007. The restructuring will allow the transfer of direct control of EVWR from P&L to Four Rivers and provide a more efficient corporate structure. This is a transaction within a corporate family of the type specifically exempted from prior review and approval of 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). According to the parties, the transaction will not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or changes in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Because the transaction involves the control of one Class II and one or more Class III rail carriers, the exemption is subject to the labor protection requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11326(b). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio* . Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than August 15, 2007 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35043, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: July 31, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15318 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 293X)] Norfolk Southern Railway Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, VA On July 19, 2007, Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NSR)filed with the Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon an approximately 15.34-mile line of railroad, extending between milepost VB-0.12 in Norfolk, VA, and milepost VB-15.46 in Virginia Beach, VA. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 23451, 23452, 23453, 23454, 23455, 23456, 23457, 23462, 23502, 23504, 23509, and 23510, and includes the stations of Park Ave., Tidewater, Glenrock, Greenwich, Euclid, Thalia, Rosemont, Lynnhaven, Oceana Wye, London Bridge, and Oldfield. The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in NSR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by November 6, 2007. Any offer of financial assistance
(OFA)under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,300 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than August 28, 2007. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 293X), and must be sent to:
(1)Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and
(2)James R. Paschall, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510-2191. Replies to the petition are due on or before August 28, 2007. Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at
(202)245-0230 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] An environmental assessment
(EA)(or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Decided: August 2, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15504 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 31, 2007. The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 7, 2007 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)*OMB Number:* 1545-2068. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* REG-155608-02
(NPRM)Revised Regulations Concerning Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity Contracts. *Description:* The collection of information in the regulations is in § 1.403(b)-10(b)(2) of the Income Tax Regulations, requiring, in the case of certain exchanges or transfers, that the section 403(b) plan sponsor or administrator enter into an agreement to exchange certain information with vendors of section 403(b) contracts. Such information exchange is necessary to ensure compliance with tax law requirements relating to loans and hardship distributions from section 403(b) plans. *Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 45,000 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1899. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* REG-138176-02
(NPRM)Timely Mailing Treated As Timely Filing. *Description:* Section 7502(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that a document received after the due date for filing will be treated as filed on the date of the United States postmark on the envelope containing the document if the postmark date is on or before the date for filing the document and the document is placed in the U.S. mail on or before the due date. Under I.R.C. Sec. 7502, in order for taxpayers to establish the postmark date and prima facie evidence of delivery when using registered or certified mail to file documents with the IRS, taxpayers will need to retain the sender's receipt. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1,084,765 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1430. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax; Annual Record of Federal Tax Liability; and Form 945 Payment Voucher. *Form:* 945; 945A. *Description:* Form 945 is used to report income tax withholding on non-payroll payments including backup withholding and withholding on pensions, annuities, IRA's military retirement and gambling winnings. Form 945-A is used to report non-payroll tax liabilities. Form 945-V is used by those taxpayers who submit a payment with their return. *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 2,077,017 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1847. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Revenue Procedure 2004-29, Statistical Sampling in Sec. 274 Context. *Description:* For taxpayers desiring to establish for purposes of Sec. 274(n)(2), (A), (C), (D), or
(E)that a portion of the total amount of substantiated expenses incurred for meals and entertainment is excepted from the 50% limitation of Sec. 274(n), the revenue procedure requires that taxpayers maintain adequate documentation to support the statistical application, sample unit findings, and all aspects of the sample plan. *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,200 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1902. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* REG-145987-03
(NPRM)Qualified Severance of a Trust for Generation-Skipping Transfer
(GST)Tax Purposes. *Description:* The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in section 26.2642-6(b)(5). This information is required by the IRS for qualified severances. This information will be used to identify the trusts being severed and the new trusts created upon severance. The collection of information is required in order to have a qualified severance. The likely respondents are individuals contributing to trusts that have skip persons as beneficiaries. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 12,500 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0121. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust). *Form:* 1116. *Description:* Form 1116 is used by individuals (including nonresident aliens) estates or trusts who paid foreign income taxes on U.S. taxable income to compute the foreign tax credit. This information is used by the IRS to verify the foreign tax credit. *Respondents:* Individuals and households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 22,093,974 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1058. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Reporting Agent Authorization. *Form:* 8655. *Description:* Form 8655 allows a taxpayer to designate a reporting agent to file certain employment tax returns electronically, and to submit Federal tax deposits. This form allows IRS to disclose tax account information and to provide duplicate copies of taxpayer correspondence to authorized agents. Reporting agents are persons or organizations preparing and filing electronically the federal tax returns and/or submitting federal tax deposits. > *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 11,000 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1731. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Revenue Procedure 2001-37, Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Elections. *Description:* A taxpayer that wants to revoke its election to be treated as a domestic corporation for all purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) must file a revocation statement with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). This revenue procedure provides guidance for implementing the elections (and revocation of such elections) established under the “FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000.” *Respondents:* Businesses or other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 19 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0172. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Depreciation and Amortization (Including Information on Listed Property). *Form:* 4562. *Description:* Taxpayers use Form 4562 to:
(1)Claim a deduction for depreciation and/or amortization;
(2)make a section 179 election to expense depreciable assets; and
(3)answer questions regarding the use of automobiles and other listed property to substantiate the business use under section 274(d). *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 217,399,275 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1357. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* PS-78-91 (Final) Procedures for Monitoring Compliance with Low-Income Housing Credit Requirements; PS-50-92 (Final) Rules to Carry Out the Purposes of Section 42 and for Correcting. *Description:* PS-78-91 The regulations require state allocation plans to provide a procedure for state and local housing credit agencies to monitor for compliance with the requirements of section 42 and report any noncompliance to the I.R.S. PS-50-92 These regulations concern the Secretary's authority to provide guidance under section 42, and provide for the correction of administrative errors and omissions related to the allocation of low-income housing credit dollar amounts and recordkeeping. REG-114664-97. The regulation amends the procedures for state and local housing credit agencies' compliance monitoring and the rules for State. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 104,899 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0531. *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, Estate of nonresident not a citizen of the United States. *Form:* 706-NA. *Description:* Under section 6018, executors must file estate tax returns for nonresident non-citizens that had property in the U.S. Executors use Form 706-NS for this purpose. IRS uses the information to determine correct tax and credits. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,584 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-2070. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Rev. Proc. 2007-48 Rotable Spare Parts Safe Harbor Method. *Description:* The information for which the agency is requesting to collect will support a taxpayer's claim for eligibility to use the safe harbor method of accounting for rotable spare parts provided in the proposed revenue procedures. The information will be submitted as a supporting schedule for the Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method. *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 75 hour. *OMB Number:* 1545-0020. *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return. *Form:* 720. *Description:* The information supplied on Form 720 is used by the IRS to determine the correct tax liability. Additionally, the data is report by the IRS to Treasury so that funds may be transferred from the general revenue funds to the appropriate trust funds. *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profits. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,567,704 hour. *Clearance Officer:* Glenn P. Kirkland,
(202)622-3428, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-15458 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request—Purchase of Branch Office(s) and/or Transfer of Assets/Liabilities AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507. The Office of Thrift Supervision within the Department of the Treasury will submit the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Today, OTS is soliciting public comments on its proposal to extend this information collection. DATES: Submit written comments on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referring to the collection by title of the proposal or by OMB approval number, to Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552; send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-6518; or send an e-mail to *infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.* OTS will post comments and the related index on the OTS Internet Site at *www.ots.treas.gov.* In addition, interested persons may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information about this proposed information collection from Patricia Goings, Financial Analyst, Applications
(202)906-5668, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and respondents are not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the approval process, we invite comments on the following information collection. Comments should address one or more of the following points: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OTS; b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology. We will summarize the comments that we receive and include them in the OTS request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, OTS is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection. *OMB Number:* 1550-0025. *Form Number:* OTS Forms 1584, 1585, and 1589. *Regulation requirement:* 12 CFR 552.13 and 563.22. *Description:* Information provided to OTS is evaluated to determine whether the proposed assumption of liabilities and/or transfer of assets transactions complies with applicable laws, regulations, and policy, and will not have an adverse effect on the risk exposure to the insurance fund. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Savings Associations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 41. *Estimated Frequency of Response:* Event-generated. *Estimated Burden Hours of Response:* 24 hours. *Estimated Total Burden:* 984 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Ira L. Mills,
(202)906-6531, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. Dated: August 3, 2007. Deborah Dakin, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division. [FR Doc. 07-3878 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 44
Traces to 44 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
59 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 98-417
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 21 CFR 807
  • Pub. L. 93-498
  • Pub. L. 93-288
  • 44 CFR 206
  • 44 CFR 206.7
  • 44 CFR 206.2(a)(18)
  • 44 CFR 206.8
  • 42 USC 5121-5206
  • 19 CFR 177
  • 19 USC 2511-18
  • 573 F. Supp. 1149
  • 741 F.2d 1368
  • 44 USC 35
  • 43 CFR 2920
  • 43 CFR 2920.5-4(b)
  • 43 CFR 2920.6
  • 43 CFR 2920.5-2
  • 43 CFR 2920.4
  • 30 CFR 282
  • 43 CFR 2
  • 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 91-173
  • Pub. L. 105-220
  • 20 CFR 663.715
  • Pub. L. 107-288
  • 20 CFR 667.220
  • Pub. L. 109-234
  • Pub. L. 110-5
  • Pub. L. 109-149
  • 29 CFR 2
  • 29 CFR 95
  • 29 CFR 97
  • 48 CFR 31
  • 29 CFR 30
  • 29 CFR 31
  • 29 CFR 32
  • 29 CFR 33
+ 19 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 355
C.F.R.§ 314.162
C.F.R.§ 314.161
C.F.R.§ 10.30
C.F.R.§ 610.40
C.F.R.§ 610.44
C.F.R.§ 10.115
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 5121
F. Supp.573 F. Supp. 1149
F. App'x741 F.2d 1368
Pub. L.Pub. L. 98-417
Cites 103 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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