Notices. Notice

26,727 words·~121 min read·/register/2007/08/16/07-4003

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

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Office of National Drug Control Policy High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; Petitions for Designation AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, Public Law 109-469, section 707(c), the Director, National Drug Control Policy is establishing regulations under which interested coalitions of law enforcement agencies from an area may petition for designation as a high intensity drug trafficking area. *Public Comment:* On June 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 106, Notices Page 30862-30864), the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control published Notice of its intent to issue this regulation.

A 60-day public comment period was established. The June 4 Notice stated that any written comments must be received by ONDCP via electronic mail or facsimile on or before August 3, 2007. In addition, an ONDCP staff point of contact was listed to provide additional information as appropriate. ONDCP did not receive any comments. Therefore, ONDCP is issuing this Notice of the agency's intent to publish a regulation identical to the document published on June 4, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 1998, and the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006 authorize the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to designate areas within the United States that exhibit serious drug trafficking problems and harmful impact of other areas of the country as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). The HIDTA Program provides federal resources to those areas to help eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences.

Law enforcement organizations within HIDTAs assess drug trafficking problems and design specific initiatives to reduce or eliminate the production, manufacture, transportation, distribution, and use of illegal drugs and money laundering. When designating a new HIDTA or adding counties to existing HIDTAs, the Director of ONDCP consults with the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Treasury, heads of national drug control agencies, and the appropriate governors, and considers the extent to which—

(1)The area is a significant center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution;

(2)State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to respond aggressively to the problem;

(3)Drug-related activities in the area are having a significant harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of the country; and

(4)A significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in the area. The HIDTA Program helps improve the effectiveness and efficiency of drug control efforts by facilitating cooperation among drug control organizations through resource and information sharing, collocation, and implementing joint initiatives. HIDTA funds help Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations invest in infrastructure and joint initiatives to confront drug trafficking organizations. Each HIDTA is governed by its own executive board comprised of Federal, State and local law enforcement officials from the designated HIDTA region. The executive boards facilitate interagency drug control efforts to eliminate or reduce drug threats. HIDTA-designated counties comprise approximately 13 percent of U.S. counties, and are present in 43 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. The following 28 areas are designated HIDTAs: *1990:* Houston, Los Angeles, New York/New Jersey, South Florida, and Southwest Border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and South and West Texas). *1994:* Washington/Baltimore (Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia) and Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands. *1995:* Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia/Camden. *1996:* Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming), Gulf Coast (Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi), Lake County (Indiana), Midwest (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) and Northwest (Washington). *1997:* Michigan and Northern California. *1998:* Appalachia (Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia), Central Florida, Milwaukee, and North Texas (Texas and Oklahoma). *1999:* Central valley California, Hawaii, New England (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont), Ohio, and Oregon. *2001:* North Florida and Nevada. To date, counties seeking HIDTA designation have communicated their interest to ONDCP in a variety of manners. Currently, no formal process or regulation exists outlining the application and selection process. Historically, law enforcement coalitions interested in obtaining designation as HIDTAs have submitted drug-related threat assessments for their counties which typically include a narrative analysis of the drug threat and statistical information related to the four statutory criteria. The proposed rule is intended to create a better coordinated and more meaningful process for reviewing applications. The rule sets forth a general process that enables interested coalitions of law enforcement agencies to submit petition for designation as a HIDTA. The criteria by which ONDCP will evaluate the petitions are set forth in this regulation. In addition, the proposed rule requires ONDCP to review submitted petitions on a regular basis. Sec. 1 General Provisions

(a)This regulation contains the rules that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Office) follows in processing petitions for designation as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), in accordance with the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006, Public Law No. 109-469.

(b)Establishment—

(1)In General—There is established in the Office a program known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (in this regulation referred to as the “Program”).

(2)Purpose—The purpose of the Program is to reduce drug trafficking and drug production in the United States by—

(A)Facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information and implement coordinated enforcement activities;

(B)Enhancing law enforcement intelligence sharing among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies;

(C)Providing reliable law enforcement intelligence to law enforcement agencies needed to design effective enforcement strategies and operations; and

(D)Supporting coordinated law enforcement strategies which maximize use of available resources to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in designated areas and in the United States as a whole.

(c)Designation—

(1)In General—The Director, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, heads of the National Drug Control Program agencies, and the Governor of each applicable State, may designate any specified area of the United States as a high intensity drug trafficking area.

(2)Activities—After making a designation under paragraph

(1)and in order to provide Federal assistance to the area so designated, the Director may—

(A)Obligate such sums as are appropriated for the Program;

(B)Direct the temporary reassignment of Federal personnel to such area, subject to the approval of the head of the department or agency that employs such personnel;

(C)Take any other action authorized under the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to provide increased Federal assistance to those areas; and

(D)Coordinate activities under this section (specifically administrative, recordkeeping, and funds management activities) with State, local, and tribal officials.

(3)Factors for Consideration—In considering whether to designate an area as a high intensity drug trafficking area, the Director shall consider, in addition to such other criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate, the extent to which—

(A)The area is a significant center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution;

(B)State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to respond aggressively to the problem;

(C)Drug-related activities in the area are having a significant harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of the country; and

(D)A significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in the area. Sec. 2 Instructions for Petitions

(a)A coalition of interested law enforcement agencies from an area may petition for designation as a HIDTA.

(b)Petitions must specify the geographical area for which HIDTA designation is requested. Areas are designated by county, therefore, such areas must be identified in the petition.

(c)Petitions must state specifically which law enforcement agencies are making the petition, a responsible official for each agency making the petition, and a point of contact for the coalition of interested law enforcement agencies.

(d)Petitions must include an assessment of the threat of illegal drugs in the area for which HIDTA designation is requested and must specifically respond to each of the following four requirements:

(1)The area is a significant center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution;

(3)Drug-related activities in the area are having a significant harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of the country; and

(4)A significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in the area.

(e)Each of the requirements in Section 2(d) must be addressed and justified with sufficient information/documentation for each county proposed in the petition.

(f)If the petition proposes to designate additional counties to an already established HIDTA region, the petition shall include a letter from the Chairman of that HIDTA's Executive Committee indicating that the Executive Committee has reviewed the petition and sets forth its position related to the petition for designation.

(g)Petitions may be submitted to the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of State, Local and Tribal Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 via facsimile at

(202)395-6721 or electronic mail at *ondcp_hidta@ondcp.eop.gov.* Comments or questions regarding this notice should be directed to Mr. Daniel Grayson, ONDCP Policy Analyst at

(202)395-4582. Sec. 3 Processing of Petitions

(a)Acknowledgements of Petitions. Upon receipt of a petition, the Office shall send an acknowledgement letter to the requester to confirm receipt of the petition and provide an assigned number for further reference.

(b)Petitions will be reviewed by the Office on a regular basis. The review will include a recommendation regarding the merit of the petition to the Director by a panel of qualified, independent experts who are designated by the Director.

(c)Notification of merit of petition. After the review is completed the requestor will be notified in writing regarding the disposition of the petition.

(d)The Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, is solely responsible for making designation and funding decisions relating to the HIDTA Program. Michael K. Gottlieb, Assistant General Counsel, Office of National Drug Control Policy. [FR Doc. E7-16174 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3180-02-P NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology; Priorities for Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Related to Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment August 10, 2007. ACTION: Notice of public comment period. SUMMARY: The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), on behalf of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology

(NSET)Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), will post a document for public comment on the Web site *www.nano.gov.* The document, The Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment, assigns priority to research needs and areas that were identified in the NSET Subcommittee document Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, which was published on September 21, 2006. The comment period will commence on August 16, 2007 and end on September 17, 2007. *Web site Posting:* The prioritization document and request for comment will be posted at the Web site of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, *www.nano.gov.* (The document can be accessed from the indicated home page or by going directly to *http://www.nano.gov/html/society/ehs_priorities* .) Comments can be submitted to the NSET Subcommittee via the Web site through September 17, 2007. Only written comments are being solicited at this time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice, please contact Cate Alexander Brennan, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. Telephone:

(703)292-4399. E-mail: *calexand@nnco.nano.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology

(NSET)Subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, and program implementation and review to ensure a balanced and comprehensive National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The NSET Subcommittee is composed of representatives from agencies participating in the NNI. The NNCO provides technical and administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee in its work. On September 21, 2006, the NSET Subcommittee released a document identifying environmental, health, and safety research and information needs related to understanding and management of potential risks of nanomaterials. The document, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, was created by the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications

(NEHI)Working Group of the NSET Subcommittee, which is composed of scientists and other agency representatives. The document reflects expert input from industry liaison groups and other research needs-identification efforts. (To read this document, see *http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf* ). On January 4, 2007, a public meeting was held in Arlington, VA, to receive input on research needs related to the environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanoscale materials, and specifically, prioritization criteria for the research identified in the September 21, 2006, document. Input gained from the public at the January 4 meeting was considered in preparing the prioritization document, which is the subject of this call for public comment. The additional feedback requested through this solicitation by the NSET Subcommittee and the NNI participating agencies is whether parties agree with the identified priorities of the Government or would suggest different or additional priorities. Support for the submitted perspectives is requested. The comment period is an opportunity for public input into the prioritization of research related to environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials. The prioritization document will be used by the Federal agencies as they set research priorities for Government-funded research programs. For more information on the National Nanotechnology Initiative and its various working entities, please visit *www.nano.gov.* How Can You Participate? You can participate through written electronic submissions to the NNCO at *http://www.nano.gov/html/society/ehs_priorities.* Submissions are welcome from all members of the public. How Will Public Input Be Used? All comments and recommendations that are submitted will be considered by the NEHI Working Group. Input from multiple stakeholders with various interests will be valuable to the NNI. Through activities such as this solicitation, the NSET Subcommittee and NNI member agencies are making the priority-setting process dynamic, open, and transparent. E. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. [FR Doc. E7-16077 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3170-WF-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455] Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-37 and NPF-66 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its June 16, 2006, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 for the Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Ogle County, Illinois. The proposed amendment would have revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report pertaining to tornado generated missile protection for certain systems and components. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on November 21, 2006 (17 FR 67393). However, by letter dated July 24, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 16, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated July 24, 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 6th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert F. Kuntz, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-16148 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance; Notice of Revision to, Withdrawal of Portions of, and Process for Updating AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of revision to, withdrawal of portions of, and process for updating NUREG-1757. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)staff is revising, withdrawing portions of, and describing the process for updating guidance in “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria” (NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, Rev. 1), Appendix N, “ALARA Analyses.” This notice also describes the staff's process for developing interim guidance and future revisions to the three volumes of its “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance” (NUREG-1757). ADDRESSES: NUREG-1757 is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. NUREG-1757 is also available electronically on the NRC Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/,* and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* The NRC's decommissioning Web page is at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/decommissioning.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane W. Schmidt, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Mail Stop T-8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:

(301)415-6919; e-mail: *dws2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 2006, the NRC staff published Revision 1 of Volume 2 of NUREG-1757, entitled, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,” which provides technical guidance on compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination in the NRC's License Termination Rule

(LTR)(Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E). Volume 2 is applicable to all licensees subject to the LTR. Volume 2 is one of three volumes of the NUREG-1757 series, which, combined, provide consolidated guidance on decommissioning. The NRC staff considers the development of its guidance as an iterative process. Formal revisions to of NUREG-1757 ( *i.e.* , publishing new revised volumes of NUREG-1757) are anticipated in the future. When these revised volumes are developed, the NRC staff intends to publish them as drafts for public comment. Between formal revisions of the NUREG-1757 volumes, errors needing correction or other revisions may be identified and the NRC staff may develop interim guidance and post it on the NRC's decommissioning web page, to make it available for use by licensees and other stakeholders. During the review of a recently submitted decommissioning plan, proposing decommissioning in accordance with the restricted use provision of the LTR, the NRC staff determined that there are certain errors in Vol. 2 of NUREG-1757, Appendix N. The specific errors concern compliance with the “as low as is reasonably achievable” (ALARA) provisions of the LTR. The guidance being corrected or withdrawn is described below. Error 1. On page N-1 of Appendix N, the first paragraph provides a general introductory discussion of ALARA. In this paragraph, the word “feasible” is used twice when referring to ALARA. The correct word is “reasonable.” Error 2. On page N-4 of Appendix N, The last paragraph discusses the monetary value for collective dose averted and discount rates that may be used in ALARA calculations. In particular, the paragraph includes the following two sentences: “For doses averted within the first 100 years, a discount rate of 7% should be used. For doses averted beyond 100 years, a 3% discount rate should be used. “ The discussion of discount rate in these two sentences is incorrect. Therefore, these two quoted sentences are withdrawn from the guidance of NUREG-1757, Vol. 2 and should not be used. Error 3. On page N-10 of Appendix N, Table N.2 summarizes acceptable parameter values for use in decommissioning ALARA analyses. This table includes a row describing the monetary discount rate, r. Consistent with Error 2, above, the description for the second column (the “value” description) of the row on monetary discount rate, r, is withdrawn from the guidance of NUREG-1757, Vol. 2. Error 4. On page N-12 of Appendix N, Example 3 is an ALARA calculation for removing surface soil contaminated with a long-lived radionuclide. Use of the single discount rate in the example may be misleading, because the guidance in NUREG/BR-0058 recommends multiple analyses be performed. Therefore, Example 3 is withdrawn from Appendix N of NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, and should not be used. Error 5. On page N-18 of Appendix N, the last paragraph again discusses acceptable values for the discount rate, r. In particular, this paragraph includes the sentence: “Values for r are given in NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2, and OMB policy (OMB 1996).” The referenced guidance is out-of-date, and this quoted sentence is withdrawn from the guidance of NUREG-1757, Vol. 2. The staff intends to develop interim guidance to address the withdrawn portions of guidance discussed above and will post the interim guidance on the NRC's decommissioning Web page, to make it available for use by licensees and other stakeholders. The guidance in NUREG-1757 and any corrections to NUREG-1757 are intended for use by NRC staff and licensees. The NUREG and any corrections are not substitutes for NRC regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The NUREG and corrections describe approaches that are generally acceptable to NRC staff. However, methods and solutions different than those in the NUREG and corrections will be acceptable, if they provide a basis for concluding that the decommissioning actions are in compliance with NRC regulations. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 10th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning & Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-16131 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on Technical Specification Improvement To Revise Control Rod Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify SRM Insert Control Rod Action, and Clarify Frequency Example AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has prepared a model safety evaluation

(SE)relating to the revision of Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6). Specifically the SE addresses:

(1)The revision of the TS surveillance requirement

(SR)3.1.3.2 frequency in STS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,”

(2)a clarification to the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation

(LCO)in STS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitor Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and

(3)the revision of Example 1.4-3 in STS Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The NRC staff has also prepared a model license amendment request and a model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models are to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to modify TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarify TS control insertion requirements, and clarify SR frequency discussions. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their plant licensing basis. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model SE, model amendment request, and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications. DATES: The comment period expires September 17, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail. Submit written comments to Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (Room O-1F21), Rockville, Maryland. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to *CLIIP@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Kobetz, Mail Stop: O-12H2, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes, by processing proposed changes to the STS in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS after a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice solicits comment on a proposed change to the STS that modifies a TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarifies TS control rod insertion requirements, and clarifies SR frequency discussions. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or announce the availability of the change for adoption by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves the modification of TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarification of TS control insertion requirements, and clarification of SR frequency discussions. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the Owners Groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-475 Revision 1. TSTF-475 Revision 1 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* Applicability This proposed TS change to modify TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarify TS control insertion requirements, and clarify SR frequency discussions is applicable to BWR NSSS plants. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the attached model SE and the NSHC. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication in the **Federal Register.** After evaluating the comments received as a result of this notice, the staff will either reconsider the proposed change or announce the availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the safety evaluation, model application or the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as a result of public comments). If the staff announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change must submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. For each application the staff will publish a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating licenses, a proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and a notice of opportunity for a hearing. The staff will also publish a notice of issuance of an amendment to operating license to announce the modification of the TS control rod SR testing frequency, TS control rod insertion requirements, and SR frequency discussions for each plant that receives the requested change. Proposed Safety Evaluation Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement Program, Technical Specification Task, Force

(TSTF)Change TSTF-475, Revision 1, Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and Source Range Monitor Technical Specification Action To Insert Control Rods 1.0 Introduction By letter dated August 30, 2004, BWR OWNERS Group (BWROG) submitted a request for changes to NUREG-1433, Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4 (Reference 1), and NUREG-1434, Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6 (Reference 2). The proposed changes would:

(1)Revise the TS control rod notch surveillance frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,”

(2)clarify the TS requirement for inserting control rods for one or more inoperable SRMs in MODE 5, and

(3)revise one Example in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. These changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF)change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, that proposes revisions to the reference BWR standard technical specifications

(STS)by:

(1)Revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of each fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM”,

(2)adding the word “fully” to LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2 (NUREG-1434 only) to clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies when the associated SRM instrument is inoperable, and

(CRD)Mechanism (CRDM), by which the control rods are moved, are components of the CRD System, which is the primary reactivity control system for the reactor. By design, the CRDM is highly reliable with a tapered design of the index tube which is conducive to control rod insertion. A stuck control rod is an extremely rare event and industry review of plant operating experience did not identify any incidents of stuck control rods while performing a rod notch surveillance test. The purpose of these revisions is to reduce the number of control rod manipulations and, thereby, reduce the opportunity for reactivity control events. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion

(GDC)29, Protection against anticipated occurrence, requires that the protection and reactivity control systems be designed to assure an extremely high probability of accomplishing their safety functions in an event of anticipated operational occurrences. The design relies on the CRDS to function in conjunction with the protection systems under anticipated operational occurrences, including loss of power to all recirculation pumps, tripping of the turbine generator, isolation of the main condenser, and loss of all offsite power. The CRDS provides an adequate means of inserting sufficient negative reactivity to shut down the reactor and prevent exceeding acceptable fuel design limits during anticipated operational occurrences. Meeting the requirements of GDC 29 for the CRDS prevents occurrence of mechanisms that could result in fuel cladding damage such as severe overheating, excessive cladding strain, or exceeding the thermal margin limits during anticipated operational occurrences. Preventing excessive cladding damage in the event of anticipated transients ensures maintenance of the integrity of the cladding as a fission product barrier. 3.0 Technical Evaluation In order to perform this SE, the NRC staff reviewed the following information provided by the BWROG to justify the submitted license amendment request for STS NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 to revise the weekly control rod notch frequency to monthly, clarify the SRM TS action for inserting control rods, and the applicability of the 25% allowance in Example 1.4-3. Specifically, the following documents were reviewed during the NRC staff's evaluation: • TSTF letter TSTF-04-07—Provided a description of the proposed NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 changes. TSTF-475 would change the weekly rod notch frequency to monthly, clarify the SRM TS actions for inserting control rods, and clarify the applicability of the 25% allowance in Example 1.4-3 (Reference 3). • TSTF letter TSTF-06-13—Provided responses to NRC staff request for additional information

(RAI)on

(1)Industry experience with identifying stuck rods,

(2)tests that would identify stuck rods,

(3)continue compliance with SIL 139,

(4)industry experience on collet failures, and

(4)applying the 25% grace period to the 31 day control rod notch SR test frequency (Reference 4). • BWROG letter BWROG-06036—Provided the GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” in which CRD notching frequency and CRD performance were evaluated (Reference 5). • TSTF letter TSTF-07-19—Provided response to NRC staff RAI on CRD performance in Control Cell Core

(CCC)designed plants, including TSTF-475, Revision 1 (Reference 6). The CRD System is the primary reactivity control system for the reactor. The CRD System, in conjunction with the Reactor Protection System, provides the means for the reliable control of reactivity changes to ensure under all conditions of normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded. Control rods are components of the CRD System that have the capability to hold the reactor core subcritical under all conditions and to limit the potential amount and rate of reactivity increase caused by a malfunction in the CRD System. The CRD System consists of a CRDM, by which the control rods are moved, and a hydraulic control unit

(HCU)for each control rod. The CRDM is a mechanical hydraulic latching cylinder that positions the control blades. The CRDM is a highly reliable mechanism for inserting a control rod to the full-in position. The collet piston mechanism design feature ensures that the control rod will not be inadvertently withdrawn. This is accomplished by engaging the collet fingers, mounted on the collet piston, in notches located on the index tube. Due to the tapered design of the index tube notches, the collet piston mechanism will not impede rod insertion under normal insertion or scram conditions. The collet retainer tube

(CRT)is a short tube welded to the upper end of the CRD which houses the collet mechanism which consist of the locking collet, collet piston, collet return spring and an unlocking cam. The collet mechanism provides the locking/unlocking mechanism that allows the insert/withdraw movement of the control rod. The CRT has three primary functions: a) to carry the hydraulic unlocking pressure to the collet piston, b) to provide an outer cylinder, with a suitable wear surface for the metal collet piston rings, and c) to provide mechanical support for the guide cap, a component which incorporates the cam surface for holding the collet fingers open and also provides the upper rod guide or bushing. According to the BWROG, at the time of the first CRT crack discovery in 1975 each partially or fully withdrawn operable control rod was required to be exercised one notch at least once each week. It was recognized that notch testing provided a method to demonstrate the integrity of the CRT. Control rod insertion capability was demonstrated by inserting each partially or fully withdrawn control rod at least one notch and observing that the control rod moves. The control rod may then be returned to its original position. This ensures the control rod is not stuck and is free to insert on a scram signal. It was determined that during scrams, the CRT temperature distribution changes substantially at reactor operating conditions. Relatively cold water moves upward through the inside of the CRT and exits via the flow holes into the annulus on the outside. At the same time hot water from the reactor vessel flows downward on the outside surface of the CRT. There is very little mixing of the cold water flowing from the three flow holes into the annulus and the hot water flowing downward. Thus, there are substantial through wall and circumferential temperature gradients during scrams which contribute to the observed CRT cracking. Subsequently, many BWRs have reduced the frequency of notch testing for partially withdrawn control rods from weekly to monthly. The notch test frequency for fully withdrawn control rods are still performed weekly. The change, for partially withdrawn control rods, was made because of the potential power reduction required to allow control rod movement for partially withdrawn control rods, the desire to coordinate scheduling with other plant activities, and the fact that a large sample of control rods are still notch tested on the weekly basis. The operating experience related to the changes in CRD performance also provided additional justification to reduce the notch test frequency for the partially withdrawn control rods. In response to the NRC staff RAIs and to support their position to reduce the CRD notch testing frequency, the BWROG provided plant data and GE Nuclear Energy report, CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station (CRDNST). The GE report provided a description of the cracks noted on the original design CRT surfaces. These cracks, which were later determined to be intergranular, were generally circumferential, and appeared with greatest frequency below and between the cooling water ports, in the area of the change in wall thickness. Subsequently, cracks associated with residual stresses were also observed in the vicinity of the attachment weld. Continued circumferential cracking could lead to 360 degree severance of the CRT that would render the CRD inoperable which would prevent insertion, withdrawal or scram. Such failure would be detectable in any fully or partially withdrawn control rod during the surveillance notch testing required by the Technical Specifications. To a lesser degree, cracks have also been noted at the welded joint of the interim design CRT but no cracks haven been observed in the final improved CRT design. In a request for additional information, BWROG response of being unable to find a collet housing failure since 1975 supported the NRC staff review of not finding a collet housing failure. To date, operating experience data shows no reports of a severed CRT at any BWR. No collet housing failures have been noted since 1975. On a numerical basis for instance, based on BWROG assumption that there are 137 control rods for a typical BWR/4 and 193 control rods for a typical BWR/6, the yearly performance would be 6590 rod notch tests for a BWR/4 plant and 9284 for a BWR/6 plant. For example, if all BWRs operating in the U.S. are taken into consideration, the yearly performances of rod notch data would translate into approximately 240,000 rod notch tests without detecting a failure. In addition, the IGSCC crack growth rates were evaluated, at Limerick Generating Station, using GE's PLEDGE model with the assumption that the water chemistry condition is based on GE recommendations. The model is based on fundamental principles of stress corrosion cracking which can evaluate crack growth rates as a function of water oxygen level, conductivity, material sensitization and applied loads. It was determined that the additional time of 24 days represented an additional 10 mils of growth in total crack length. The small difference in growth rate would have little effect on the behavior between one notch test and the next subsequent test. Therefore, from the materials perspective based on low crack growth rates, a decrease in the notch test frequency would not affect the reliability of detecting a CRDM failure due to crack growth. Also, the BWR scram system has extremely high reliability. In addition to notch testing, scram time testing can identify failure of individual CRD operation resulting from IGSCC-initiated cracks and mechanical binding. Unlike the CRD notch tests, these single rod scram tests cover the other mechanical components such as scram pilot solenoid operated valves, the scram inlet and outlet air operated valves, and the scram accumulator, as well as operation of the control rods. Thus, the primary assurance of scram system reliability is provided by the scram time testing since it monitors the system scram operation and the complete travel of the control rod. Also, the HCUs, CRD drives, and control rods are also tested during refueling outages, approximately every 18-24 months. Based on the data collected during the preceding cycle of operation, selected control rod drives, are inspected and, as required, their internal components are replaced. Therefore, increasing the CRD notch testing frequency to monthly would have very minimal impact on the reliability of the scram system. The NRC staff has reviewed the BWROG TSTF's proposal to amend the TS SR 3.1.3.2, “Control Rod OPERABILITY” from seven days to monthly. Based on the following evaluation condition:

(1)Slow crack growth rate of the CRT;

(2)the improved CRT design;

(3)a higher reliable method (scram time testing) to monitor CRD scram system functionality;

(4)GE chemistry recommendations; and

(5)no known CRD failures have been detected during the notch testing exercise, the NRC staff concluded that the changes would reduce the number of control rod manipulations thereby reducing the opportunity for potential reactivity events while having a very minimal impact on the extremely high reliability of the CRD system. Therefore, the NRC staff finds the change acceptable with the commitment to implement GE water quality for the CRD system recommendations. Furthermore, the utilities should consider the replacement of the CRT, when possible, with the GE CRT improved design. The NRC staff has reviewed the BWROG TSTF-475 proposal to amend the NUREG-1434, Specification 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2 from “Initiate action to insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies” to “Initiate action to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies.” The NRC staff finds the revision acceptable because the requirement to insert control rods is meant to require control rods to be fully inserted and adding “fully” does not change but clarifies the intent of the action. The NRC staff has reviewed the BWROG TSTF-475 proposal to amend Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency,” to make the 1.25 provision in SR 3.0.2 to be equally applicable to time periods specified in the “FREQUENCY” column and in the NOTE in the “SURVEILLANCE” column. The NRC staff finds this change acceptable since the revision would make it consistent with the definition of specified “Frequency” provided in the second paragraph of Section 1.4 which states that the specified “Frequency” is referred to throughout this section and each of the Specifications of Section 3.0, Surveillance Requirement

(SR)Applicability. The specified “Frequency” consists of the requirements of the Frequency column of each SR, as well as certain Notes in the Surveillance column that modify performance requirements. 3.1 Conclusion The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposal to amend existing TS sections SR 3.1.3.2, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,” NUREG-1434, LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitor

(SRM)Instrumentation,” and Example 1.4-3, “Frequency” applicable to SR 3.0.2. The NRC staff has concluded that the TS revisions will have a minimal affect on the high reliability of the CRD system while reducing the opportunity for potential reactivity events; thus, meeting the requirement of CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 29. Therefore, the staff concludes that the amendment request is acceptable. Based on the considerations discussed above, the Commission has concluded that:

(1)There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,

(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and

(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) No comments or

(2)the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, and there has been no public comment on the finding [FR ]. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments. 6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that

(1)There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,

(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and

(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 7.0 References 1. NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 2. NUREG-1434, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 3. Letter TSTF-04-07 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, TSTF-475 Revision 0, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action,” May 5, 2005, ADAMS accession number ML042520035. 4. Letter TSTF-06-13 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated July 3, 2006, ADAMS accession number ML0618403421. 5. Letter BWROG-06036 from the BWR Owners Group to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated November 16, 2006, Enclosure of the GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, ADAMS accession number ML0632502580. 6. Letter TSTF-07-19 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated May 22, 2007, ADAMS accession number ML0714204280. The following example of an application was prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate use of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The model provides the expected level of detail and content for an application to revise technical specifications regarding revision of control rod notch surveillance test frequency, clarification of SRM insert control rod action, and a clarification of a frequency example. Licensees remain responsible for ensuring that their actual application fulfills their administrative requirements as well as Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. *Subject:* PLANT NAME DOCKET NO. 50- APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REGARDING REVISION OF CONTROL ROD NOTCH SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCY, CLARIFICATION OF SRM INSERT CONTROL ROD ACTION, AND A CLARIFICATION OF A FREQUENCY EXAMPLE USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS. Gentleman: In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications

(TS)for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment would:

(1)Revise the TS surveillance requirement

(SR)frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,

(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation

(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,” and

(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. Attachment 1 provides a description of the proposed change, the requested confirmation of applicability, and plant-specific verifications. Attachment 2 provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed change. Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the regulatory commitments made in this submittal. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed License Amendment by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Stats of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct. (Note that request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or affirmation statement). If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER] Sincerely, [Name, Title] Attachments: 1. Description and Assessment. 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes. 3. Revised Technical Specification Pages. 4. Regulatory Commitments. 5. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes. CC: NRC Project Manager. NRC Regional Office. NRC Resident Inspector. State Contact. Attachment 1—Description and Assessment 1.0 Description The proposed amendment would:

(1)Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR 3.1.3.2) frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,

(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation

(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation”, and

(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)STS change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The **Federal Register** notice published on [DATE] announced the availability of this TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). 2.0 Assessment 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. This review included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation, as well as the supporting information provided to support TSTF-475, Revision 1. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS. 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations [LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the TS changes described in the modified TSTF-475, Revision 1 and the NRC staff's model safety evaluation dated [DATE]. 3.0 Regulatory Analysis 3.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the **Federal Register** as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the **Federal Register** notice is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in the notice of availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] for this TS improvement, the [LICENSEE] verifies the applicability of TSTF-475 to [PLANT], and commits to establishing Technical Specification Bases for TS as proposed in TSTF-475, Revision 1. These changes are based on TSTF change traveler TSTF-475 (Revision 1) that proposes revisions to the BWR STS by:

(1)Revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM”,

(3)revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column in addition to the time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column. 4.0 Environmental Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application. Attachment 2—Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Mark-Up) Attachment 3—Proposed Technical Specification Pages Attachment 4—List of Regulatory Commitments The following table identifies those actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in this document. Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments. Please direct questions regarding these commitments to [CONTACT NAME]. Regulatory commitments Due date/event [LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for [TS B 3.1.3, TS B 3.1.4, and TS B 3.3.1.2] as adopted with the applicable license amendment [Complete, implemented with amendment or within X days of implementation of amendment]. [LICENSEE] will establish the water quality controls as recommended by SIL No. 148, Water Quality Control for the Control Rod System,” September 15, 1975 [Complete, implemented with amendment or within X days of implementation of amendment]. Attachment 5—Proposed Changes to Technical Specification Bases Pages Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination *Description of Amendment Request:* [Plant Name] requests adoption of an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)for General Electric

(GE)Plants (NUREG-1433, BWR/4 and NUREG-1434, BWR/6) and plant specific technical specifications (TS), that allows:

(1)Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement

(SR)3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,

(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation

(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and

(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety TSTF-475, Revision 1 will:

(1)Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,

(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation

(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and

(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 are acceptable and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl Schulten, Acting Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-16138 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Filings for Reconsiderations AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of request for OMB approval. SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC)is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a collection of information under its regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Copies of the collection of information may also be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address or by visiting the Disclosure Division or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) PBGC's regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://www.pbgc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald F. McCabe, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC's regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions (29 CFR part 4003) prescribes rules governing the issuance of initial determinations by PBGC and the procedures for requesting and obtaining reconsideration of initial determinations through reconsideration or appeal. Subpart A of the regulation specifies which initial determinations are subject to reconsideration. Subpart C prescribes rules on who may request reconsideration, when to make such a request, where to submit it, form and content of reconsideration requests, and other matters relating to reconsiderations. Any person aggrieved by an initial determination of PBGC under 4003.1(b)(1) (determinations that a plan is covered by section 4021 of ERISA), 4003.1(b)(2) (determinations concerning premiums, interest, and late payment penalties under section 4007 of ERISA), § 4003.1(b)(3) (determinations concerning voluntary terminations), or § 4003.1(b)(4) (determinations concerning allocation of assets under section 4044 of ERISA) may request reconsideration of the initial determination. Requests for reconsideration must be in writing, be clearly designated as requests for reconsideration, contain a statement of the grounds for reconsideration and the relief sought, and contain or reference all pertinent information. PBGC is requesting that OMB approve this collection of information for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. PBGC estimates that an average of 940 appellants per year will respond to this collection of information. PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 0.35 hours and $550 per person, with an average total annual burden of 329 hours and $519,350. Issued in Washington, DC, this 10th day of August, 2007. John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-16101 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review—Termination of Single Employer Plans; Missing Participants; PBGC Forms 500-501, 600-602 AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of request for extension of OMB approval. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information in its regulations on Termination of Single Employer Plans and Missing Participants, and implementing forms and instructions (OMB control number 1212-0036, expires September 30, 2007). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Copies of the request for extension (including the collection of information) may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address, visiting the Disclosure Division, faxing a request to 202-326-4042, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The Disclosure Division will e-mail, fax, or mail the request to you, as you request. The regulations and forms and instructions relating to this collection of information may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://www.pbgc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Amato Burns, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024 (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4223, ext. 3072.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), a single-employer pension plan may terminate voluntarily only if it satisfies the requirements for either a standard or a distress termination. Pursuant to ERISA section 4041(b), for standard terminations, and section 4041(c), for distress terminations, and PBGC's termination regulation (29 CFR part 4041), a plan administrator wishing to terminate a plan is required to submit specified information to PBGC in support of the proposed termination and to provide specified information regarding the proposed termination to third parties (participants, beneficiaries, alternate payees, and employee organizations). In the case of a plan with participants or beneficiaries who cannot be located when their benefits are to be distributed, the plan administrator is subject to the requirements of ERISA section 4050 and PBGC's missing participants regulation (29 CFR part 4050). As noted above, these regulations may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://www.pbgc.gov.* The collection of information under these regulations and the implementing forms and instructions has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0036 (expires September 30, 2007). PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. PBGC estimates that 1,259 plan administrators will be subject to the collection of information requirements in PBGC's termination and missing participants regulations and implementing forms and instructions each year, and that the total annual burden of complying with these requirements is 2,081 hours and $2,766,679. Much of the work associated with terminating a plan is performed for purposes other than meeting these requirements. Issued in Washington, DC, this 10th day of August, 2007. John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-16102 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. MC2007-5; Order No. 25] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice and order. SUMMARY: This document establishes a docket for consideration of the Postal Service's request for approval of contract rates with Life Line Screening of America. It identifies key elements of the proposed agreement, which involves Standard Mail letter rates, and addresses preliminary procedural matters. DATES: 1. August 31, 2007: Deadline for filing notices of intervention. 2. September 7, 2007: Deadline for responses to proposal for limiting issues. 3. September 11, 2007: Prehearing conference, 10 a.m. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2007, the United States Postal Service filed a request seeking a recommended decision from the Postal Regulatory Commission approving a Negotiated Service Agreement

(NSA)with Life Line Screening of America (Life Line Screening). 1 The NSA is proffered as a new baseline agreement. The Request, which includes six attachments, was filed pursuant to chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code. 2 1 Request of the United States Postal Service for a Recommended Decision on Classifications and Rates to Implement a Baseline Negotiated Service Agreement with Life Line Screening, August 8, 2007 (Request). 2 Attachments A and B to the Request contain proposed changes to the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule and the associated rate schedules; Attachment C is a certification required by Commission rule 193(i) specifying that the cost statements and supporting data submitted by the Postal Service, which purport to reflect the books of the Postal Service, accurately set forth the results shown by such books; Attachment D is an index of testimony and exhibits; Attachment E is a compliance statement addressing satisfaction of various filing requirements; and Attachment F is a copy of the Negotiated Service Agreement. The Postal Service has identified Life Line Screening, along with itself, as parties to the NSA. This identification serves as notice of intervention by Life Line Screening. It also indicates Life Line Screening shall be considered a co-proponent, procedurally and substantively, of the Postal Service's Request during the Commission's review of the NSA. Rule 191(b) [39 CFR 3001.191(b).] An appropriate Notice of Life Line Screening of Appearance and Filing of Testimony as Co-Proponent, August 8, 2007, also was filed. In support of the Request, the Postal Service has filed Direct Testimony of Michelle K. Yorgey on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, August 8, 2007 (USPS-T-1) and library reference USPS-LR-L-1, MC2004-3 Opinion and Further Recommended Decision Analysis for the Life Line Screening NSA. Life Line Screening has separately filed Direct Testimony of Eric Greenberg on Behalf of Life Line Screening, August 8, 2007 (LLS-T-1). The Postal Service has reviewed the Life Line Screening testimony and, in accordance with rule 192(b) [39 CFR 3001.192(b)], states that such testimony may be relied upon in presentation of the Postal Service's direct case. USPS-T-1 at 1. The Postal Service has filed a proposal for limitation of issues in this docket. 3 The Postal Service asserts that the Life Line Screening NSA and the Bookspan NSA contain similar elements. [70 FR 42602.] The Postal Service identifies issues that were previously decided in Bookspan and key issues that are unique to the instant Request. The Postal Service requests an order limiting the scope of discovery to key new issues. 3 United States Postal Service Proposal for Limitation of Issues, August 8, 2007. The Postal Service's Request, accompanying testimonies of witnesses Yorgey (USPS-T-1), and Greenberg (LLS-T-1), and other related material are available for inspection at the Commission's docket section during regular business hours. They can also be accessed electronically, via the Internet, on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.prc.gov* ). I. Life Line Screening NSA The Postal Service proposes to enter into a new baseline three-year NSA with Life Line Screening. The agreement offers Life Line Screening declining block rates for Standard Mail letters. Life Line Screening will be able to use the Standard Mail letters for soliciting potential and existing customers for direct-to-consumer preventive health screenings. The Postal Service estimates it will benefit by $4.87 million over the life of the NSA. Request at 5. The purpose of the Life Line Screening NSA is to encourage Life Line Screening to increase its use of Standard Mail letters for selling health care screening services nationwide. Without such incentives, the Postal Service contends that Life Line Screening's direct mail marketing volumes are expected to decline due to sensitivity to direct mail cost increases. *Id.* at 2. The Life Line Screening NSA provides discounts based on a block rate structure for Standard Mail letter-size pieces. Life Line Screening must reach a volume commitment level, which is set higher than the lowest block volume level, before any discounts are payable. During the first year of the agreement, discounts may be earned for annual volumes above 90 million pieces once a volume commitment of 95 million pieces has been reached. During the second year of the agreement, discounts may be earned for annual volumes above 88 million pieces once a volume commitment of 93 million pieces has been reached. During the third year of the agreement, discounts also may be earned for annual volumes above 88 million pieces once a volume commitment of 93 million pieces has been reached. Discounts, under the proposed declining block rate structure, range from 1 to 3 cents per piece during each year of the agreement. *See* Request, Attachment B. The volume commitment levels for the second and third years of the agreement are subject to adjustment based on the actual volumes mailed in the previous year. If at the end of the first or second years, the actual volume is 12 percent or more above the prior year's commitment, the following year's commitment will be revised to be the average of the prior year's actual volume and the following year's original commitment. If at the end of the first or second years, the actual volume is 5 percent or more below the prior year's commitment, the following year's commitment will be decreased by the percentage difference between the prior year's actual volume and the prior year's original commitment. *See* Request, Attachment A. As a means to protect the Postal Service's financial interests, the Life Line Screening NSA contains additional risk mitigation features. The Postal Service has established three tiers within each letter volume block. The highest discount tier for the first year of the agreement applies to volumes between 110 million and 118 million mailpieces. If Life Line Screening exceeds 118 million pieces by an additional 10 million pieces, the agreement will be terminated. Either party also may unconditionally cancel the agreement with 30 days' written notice. *Id.* II. Commission Analysis *Applicability of the rules for baseline NSAs.* For administrative purposes, the Commission has docketed the instant filing as a request for a new baseline NSA pursuant to rule 195 [39 CFR 3001.195]. *Representation of the general public.* In conformance with section 3624(a) of title 39, the Commission designates Kenneth E. Richardson, acting director of the Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate, to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. Pursuant to this designation, Mr. Richardson will direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to assist him and, upon request, will supply their names for the record. Neither Mr. Richardson nor any of the assigned personnel will participate in or provide advice on any Commission decision in this proceeding. *Intervention.* Those wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention on or before August 31, 2007. The notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.prc.gov* ), unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing. Rules 9(a) and 10(a) [39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 10(a).] Notices should indicate whether participation will be on a full or limited basis. *See* rules 20 and 20a [39 CFR 3001.20 and 20a.] No decision has been made at this point on whether a hearing will be held in this case. *Prehearing conference.* A prehearing conference will be held September 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the Commission's hearing room. Participants intending to object to the Postal Service's proposal for limiting issues or intending to identify issue(s) that would indicate the need to schedule a hearing shall file a written explanation of their position by September 7, 2007. Participants should be prepared to discuss these issues during the prehearing conference. The Commission intends to issue a ruling on these issues shortly after the prehearing conference. III. Ordering Paragraphs *It is ordered:* 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2007-5 to consider the Postal Service Request referred to in the body of this order. 2. The Commission will sit *en banc* in this proceeding. 3. Kenneth E. Richardson, acting director of the Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public. 4. The deadline for filing notices of intervention is August 31, 2007. 5. A prehearing conference will be held September 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the Commission's hearing room. 6. Participants intending to object to the Postal Service's proposal for limiting issues or intending to identify issue(s) that would indicate the need to schedule a hearing, shall file a written explanation of their position by September 7, 2007. 7. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Garry J. Sikora, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16089 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. XBRL Voluntary Program Questionnaire. OMB Control No. 3235-NEW; SEC File No. 270-577. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request to approve the collection of information discussed below. The title of the questionnaire is “XBRL Voluntary Program Questionnaire.” The XBRL Voluntary Program Questionnaire consists mainly of questions based on the respondent's experience with submitting eXtensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”) tagged data to the Commission on a voluntary basis as a supplemental exhibit to specified filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) and Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ). The Commission needs the information to learn about the voluntary program from the participant perspective. Responses to the questionnaire are voluntary and will be publicly available. The Commission plans to use the information to help it assess the feasibility and desirability of using tagged data on a more widespread and, possibly, mandated, basis in the future. In addition, the information may also be used by the Commission or its staff in connection with public analyses of the responses. The likely respondents to the questionnaire are the participants in the voluntary program. We estimate that each of 80 respondents will respond once and take 4 hours per response for a total reporting burden of 320 hours. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov;* and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: August 9, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16091 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Extension: Rule 17f-1(g); SEC File No. 270-30; OMB Control No. 3235-0290. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. • Rule 17f-1(g) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(g)) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q(f)) (“Act”) Requirements for reporting and inquiry with respect to missing, lost, counterfeit or stolen securities. Paragraph

(g)of Rule 17f-1 requires that all reporting institutions (i.e., every national securities exchange, member thereof, registered securities association, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency, participant therein, member of the Federal Reserve System and bank insured by the FDIC) maintain and preserve a number of documents related to their participation in the Lost and Stolen Securities Program (“Program”) under Rule 17f-1. The following documents must be kept in an easily accessible place for three years, according to paragraph (g):

(1)Copies or all reports of theft or loss (Form X-17F-1A) filed with the Commission's designee:

(2)All agreements between reporting institutions regarding registration in the Program or other aspects of Rule 17f-1; and

(3)all confirmations or other information received from the Commission or its designee as a result of inquiry. Reporting institutions utilize these records and reports

(a)to report missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to the database,

(b)to confirm inquiry of the database, and

(c)to demonstrate compliance with Rule 17f-1. The Commission and the reporting institutions' examining authorities utilize these records to monitor the incidence of thefts and losses incurred by reporting institutions and to determine compliance with Rule 17f-1. If such records were not retained by reporting institutions, compliance with Rule 17f-1 could not be monitored effectively. The Commission estimates that there are 25,628 reporting institutions (respondents) and, on average, each respondent would need to retain 33 records annually, with each retention requiring approximately 1 minute (33 minutes or .55 hours). The total estimated annual burden is 14,095.4 hours (25,628 × .55 hours = 14,095.4). Assuming an average hourly cost for clerical work of $22.00, the average total yearly record retention cost for each respondent would be $12.10. Based on these estimates, the total annual cost for the estimated 25,628 reporting institutions would be approximately $310,099. Written comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted within 60 days of this notice. Dated: August 9, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16162 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Extension: Rule 17a-1; SEC File No. 270-244; OMB Control No. 3235-0208. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 17a-1 (17 CFR 240.17a-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78a *et. seq.* ) requires that all national securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board keep on file for a period of five years, two years in an accessible place, all documents that they make or receive respecting their self-regulatory activities, and that such documents be available for examination by the Commission. The Commission staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for compliance with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 50 hours per year. There are 22 entities required to comply with the rule: 10 National securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, 10 registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. In addition, 3 national securities exchanges notice-registered pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Act are required to preserve records of determinations made under Rule 3a55-1, which the Commission staff estimates will take 1 hour per exchange, for a total of 3 hours. Accordingly, the Commission staff estimates that the total number of hours necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 1,103 hours. The average cost per hour is $50. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for the respondents is $55,150. Rule 17a-1 does not assure confidentiality for the records maintained pursuant to the rule. The records required by Rule 17a-1 are available only for examination by the Commission staff, state securities authorities and the self-regulatory organizations. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, and the Commission's rules thereunder (17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish or make available information contained in any reports, summaries, analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and records of any person or any other investigation. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments should be directed to

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this notice. Dated: August 8, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16163 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56236; File No. SR-Amex-2007-85] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by the American Stock Exchange LLC To Establish a New Class of Off-Floor Market Makers in ETFs and Equities Called Designated Amex Remote Traders August 9, 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 August 8, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Amex. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex proposes to adopt changes to its rules to create a new class of off-floor market makers in all ETF and equity-traded securities that trade on the Exchange, including the implementation of related changes to the Exchange's AEMI SM trading platform. These market makers, to be called “Designated Amex Remote Traders” or “DARTs,” will electronically enter competitive quotations on a regular basis sufficient to satisfy market maker regulatory requirements. Business requirements will include minimum performance standards, including that the quotations entered must be on one side of the NBBO for a required percentage of the time in all assigned securities. The purpose of the new program is to

(1)encourage competitive quoting within the Amex and between the Amex and other market centers,

(2)retain and increase order flow by attracting new market makers to the Exchange, and

(3)encourage greater depth at or around the NBBO. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com,* the Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In order to

(1)Encourage competitive quoting within the Amex and between the Amex and other market centers,

(2)retain and increase equity and ETF order flow in AEMI by attracting new market makers to the Exchange, and

(3)encourage greater depth at or around the NBBO, the Exchange proposes to adopt changes to its rules to create a new class of off-floor market makers in all ETF and equity-traded securities that trade on the Exchange, including the implementation of related changes to the Exchange's AEMI trading platform. These market makers, to be called “Designated Amex Remote Traders” or “DARTs,” will electronically enter competitive quotations on a regular basis sufficient to satisfy market maker regulatory requirements. DARTs will also have to meet certain business requirements, which will include minimum performance standards. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation of the DARTs program should increase the liquidity available in those securities to which DARTs are assigned and reduce the likelihood of tolerance breaches in AEMI due to the resultant additional depth at or around the NBBO. DARTs will be members or member organizations physically located off-floor that will electronically enter competitive quotations into AEMI on a regular basis in all securities to which they are assigned in the DART program. The proposed DART program is similar to the Supplemental Registered Options Traders (“SROT”) program implemented by the Amex for options, 3 with its own unique caveats. Under the DART proposal, an Amex specialist firm may also be a DART, although it may not be registered as such in securities in which it is also the specialist. In ETFs, DARTs will trade in an identical way as Registered Traders in the same securities on the Exchange when auto-ex is on, with similar obligations under Exchange rules such as those relating to a course of dealings that contributes to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. DARTs in equity-traded securities will be subject to the same obligations as DARTs in ETFs and will not be subject to the stabilization rules that are applicable to equity specialists. DARTs will not participate in any post-trade allocation in connection with an auction trade; instead, a DART's participation in an auction pair-off on the Exchange will be limited to the amount of its quotation on the AEMI Book at the time of the pair-off. 3 *See* Amex Rule 993-ANTE (Supplemental Registered Options Traders). Amex will establish minimum requirements for a DART to remain in the program, which may be modified by the Exchange from time to time. First, they must provide competitive quotations on a regular basis sufficient to satisfy market maker regulatory requirements. Business requirements will include minimum performance standards determined from time-to-time by the Exchange, including that a DART's quotations must be on one side of the NBBO for a required percentage of the time in all assigned securities. Other such performance standards will include average displayed size, average quoted spread, and the ability of the DART to transact in underlying markets in the case of a derivative security. A DART that fails to comply with one or more of the performance standards, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange or his/her designee, may be subject to loss of the benefits to which it would otherwise be entitled under Amex rules by virtue of its status as a DART ( *e.g.* , rebates for providing liquidity), including suspension or termination of DART status. A DART may be either a regular member of the Exchange or an associate member of the Exchange that meets the requirements for electronic access to the Exchange's automated systems. DARTs will receive benefits for participating in and meeting the requirements of the DART program. The benefits currently being considered by the Exchange may include, but would not necessarily be limited to:

(i)Rebates for providing liquidity as the contra to any customer orders/quotes executed on AEMI;

(ii)no charges for proprietary trades by DART program participants; and/or

(iii)no limitation on the number of equity and ETF securities in which a DART could be assigned to make markets. The Exchange expects that the proposed rules for the DART program will set a high bar for prospective DART participants, and, while management anticipates starting the program with a limited group of DARTS, no specific upper limit on the number of DARTs is anticipated. In addition to the requirements cited above, DARTs shall be required to meet eligibility criteria similar to those specified in the SROT program, which include:

(i)Adequacy of resources including capital, technology and personnel;

(ii)History of stability, superior electronic capacity, and superior operational capacity;

(iii)Level of market-making and/or specialist experience in a broad array of securities;

(iv)Ability to interact with order flow in all types of markets;

(v)Existence of order flow commitments;

(vi)Willingness and ability to make competitive markets on the Exchange and otherwise promote the Exchange in a manner that is likely to enhance the ability of the Exchange to compete successfully for order flow in the equity and ETF securities it trades; and

(vii)The number of member organizations requesting approval to act as a DART. The Exchange would use the factor relating to the existence of order flow commitments to evaluate existing order flow commitments between a DART applicant and order flow providers. A future change to, or termination of, any such commitments would not be used by the Exchange at any point in the future to terminate or take remedial action against a DART. Furthermore, the Exchange would not take remedial action solely because orders subject to any such commitments were not subsequently routed to the Exchange. The factor relating to willingness to promote the Exchange includes assisting in meeting and educating market participants, maintaining communications with member firms in order to be responsive to suggestions and complaints, responding to suggestions and complaints, and other similar activities. The Exchange would use this criterion to determine which applicants would best be able to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. The Exchange would not apply this factor to in any way restrict, either directly or indirectly, a DART's activities as a market maker or specialist on other exchanges, or to restrict how a DART handle orders held by it in a fiduciary capacity to which it owes a duty of best execution. Finally, the Exchange will propose in future rule filings certain other significant changes to AEMI in order to enhance the DART program's chances of success. Those proposed changes are expected to include:

(i)Significantly reducing the parity window from the current two-second joining time to a significantly shorter time period, which should increase the competition among liquidity providers to establish a new market;

(ii)Providing reserve interest to DARTs and other quoting participants; and

(iii)Allowing DARTs to use PPI orders (currently limited to Specialists and Registered Traders). The regulatory requirements applicable to DARTs will be surveilled for by the NASD Amex Regulatory Division (“NASD”) consistent with current surveillance procedures for Registered Traders on the Exchange. NASD staff will work with Amex technical staff on planning the necessary changes to AEMI to capture required surveillance data and in surveilling the increased number of market makers that the program is expected to attract. Adjustments to current technology and surveillance procedures will likely also be necessitated by the fact that the DARTs will not be physically located on the floor of the Exchange. The specific AEMI rules to which changes are being proposed are discussed below. Rule 110A-AEMI. Designated Amex Remote Traders This proposed new rule will contain the basic requirements for DARTs as described herein, in the same manner that Rule 110-AEMI contains the basic requirements for Registered Traders. Rule 1A-AEMI. Applicability, Definitions, References and Phase-In The Exchange is proposing revisions to Rule 1A-AEMI in order to

(i)Update the definition of the AEMI Book to include electronic submissions from DARTs,

(ii)provide that a Crowd Order includes any bid or offer in the AEMI Book entered by a DART,

(iii)provide a definition of a DART with a cross-reference to proposed Rule 110A-AEMI,

(iv)update the definition of the Specialist Order Book to exclude bids and offers of DARTs, and

(v)make a minor unrelated correction to the definition of Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”). Rule 109-AEMI. “Stopping” Stock The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 109-AEMI to add DARTs to the list of Amex market participants prohibited from granting or accepting a stop with respect to a security traded in AEMI. Rule 112-AEMI. Suspension of Registration of Registered Trader or Designated Amex Remote Trader The Exchange is proposing to add a provision to this rule to provide for the suspension of the registration of a DART under circumstances similar to the current provision that provides for the suspension of a Registered Trader. Both types of participants are market makers with respect to securities traded in AEMI. Rule 115-AEMI. Exchange Procedures for Use of Unusual Market Exception The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 115-AEMI to provide procedures that will cover situations in which DARTs are unable to publish quotations or are streaming in incorrect quotes under unusual market conditions. The Exchange also is proposing to correct an inaccuracy in the current rule in order to clarify that such issues with respect to Registered Traders are handled via the Service Desk and not by a Floor Official. Rule 123-AEMI. Manner of Bidding and Offering The Exchange is proposing revisions to this rule to provide that AEMI shall accept electronic bids and offers from DARTs and include them in the AEMI Book. The proposed changes would also place DARTs on a par with Specialists and Registered Traders in terms of their ability to stream bids and offers into AEMI at multiple price levels and would require (as with Specialists and Registered Traders) that all quotes provided be two-sided. DARTs would also be prohibited from streaming in a quote that locks or crosses an existing quote that the same DART has previously streamed in for the same security. Rule 128A-AEMI. Automatic Execution The Exchange is proposing two minor changes to Rule 128A-AEMI so that DARTs will be treated in the same manner as Registered Traders in connection with certain automatic executions when a DART's quotation

(i)matches the Amex Published Quote (“APQ”) on the other side of the market or

(ii)would lock or cross the APQ in certain circumstances. Rule 128B-AEMI. Auction Trades The changes being proposed to this rule would exclude DARTs from participation in any post-trade allocation in connection with an auction, as described above. Rule 157-AEMI. Orders With More Than One Broker The Exchange proposes to add a new paragraph to this rule that would place restrictions on DARTs similar to those that Registered Traders are subject to in terms of not being able to

(i)Place a Crowd Order with a broker or

(ii)maintain an order on the Specialist Order Book, while the DART is maintaining a bid or offer for the security in AEMI. Rule 719-AEMI. Comparison of Exchange Transactions The Exchange is proposing to add DARTs to one of the equity account type codes used for market maker transactions in the equities and ETFs in which they are registered. Rule 957. Accounts, Orders and Records of Registered Traders, Designated Amex Remote Traders, Specialists and Associated Persons The Exchange is proposing changes to Rule 957 that will place the same requirements on DARTs that Registered Traders are subject to with respect to reporting certain trading accounts and orders to the Exchange and producing books, records, and other information pertaining to certain transactions. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with Regulation NMS, as well as consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5), 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others 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 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-85 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-85. 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 Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-85 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2007. 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16052 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56235; File No. SR-BSE-2007-37] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Existing Fee Schedules August 9, 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 18, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), 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 BSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The BSE proposes amending certain transaction fees set forth in the Boston Equities Exchange (“BeX”) fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.bostonstock.com,* at the BSE, 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 The Exchange is proposing to amend the revenue sharing provision of the BeX fee schedule for the revenue sharing program. BeX proposes to share fifty percent of gross revenues generated from the Liquidity Taker transaction fees for each symbol traded. The revenue would be shared with the top three liquidity-providing Member Firms based on monthly BeX executed share volume in each security. Cross trade volume would not be eligible to be counted for purposes of determining BeX executed share volume in this revenue sharing program. In addition, Chapter II “Dealings on the Exchange”, section 26 “Anti-Manipulative Provisions” of the BSE rules prohibits firms from executing wash sale trades. If the Exchange determines that a wash sale trade has occurred, the volume from such a trade would not be counted for the purposes of determining BeX executed share volume for this revenue sharing program. 3 3 Telephone conversation between Kathy Marshall, Vice President, Business Strategist, BSE and Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on August 9, 2007. The new revenue sharing program would work as follows: First, total monthly BeX generated liquidity taking revenues would be determined on a per symbol basis; Second, the total monthly BeX generated liquidity taking revenues would be split in half, with fifty percent going to BeX and fifty percent to be allocated among the top three liquidity providing Member Firms in each security (“Eligible Revenues”). BeX would split the pool of Eligible Revenues with the top three liquidity providers in each security as follows: In each calendar month, each of the top three providers would share in the pool of Eligible Revenues on a pro-rata basis based on their percentage of executed liquidity versus the total executed liquidity for the top three providers. Additionally, a minimum of 25,000 total monthly BeX executed shares must be executed by a liquidity provider to be eligible to participate in the revenue sharing program for any specific security. The following is an example of how the revenue sharing program would work for any one security: Assume 1,125,000 total shares of liquidity were provided and executed by five separate firms for the month. Of the 1,125,000 total shares, the top three liquidity providers represented 1,000,000 shares with the top firm providing 700,000, the second place firm providing 200,000 and the third place firm providing 100,000. Since the top firm represented seventy percent of the total liquidity provided by the top three firms (700,000 of the 1,000,000 shares), this firm would receive seventy percent of the Eligible Revenues. The second place firm would receive twenty percent of the Eligible Revenues and the third place firm would receive ten percent of the Eligible Revenues. In the event firms are tied at certain volume levels, those firms would share the applicable percentage of Eligible Revenues among all firms that are tied at the same levels. The following is an example of how this would work: Assume 1,200,000 total shares of liquidity were provided and executed by seven separate firms for the month. Of the 1,200,000 total shares, the top three liquidity providers represented 1,000,000 with the top firm providing 700,000, and the second, third, and fourth place firms providing 150,000 shares each. In this example, the top firm would receive seventy percent of the Eligible Revenue. The remaining thirty percent of Eligible Revenue would be shared equally with the three firms, each of whom had executed 150,000 shares. Each of the three firms would receive ten percent of the Eligible Revenue. BeX would also report BeX-provided liquidity information daily on its Web site, accumulated on a month-to-date basis. This would show the total liquidity provided in each security and would be updated at the close of each business day. This information would also be updated hourly on the last trading day of the month. In addition, all of the different firms providing liquidity, as well as the individual levels of liquidity provided, would be reported on an anonymous basis ( *i.e.* , Firm A, Firm B, Firm C, etc.) in a matrix format by security and by firm. 4 This would allow firms to determine their ranking in a security at any given point during the month and at any given hour on the last trading day of the month. To maintain a fair and equitable distribution of information, BeX staff would be prohibited from communicating, outside of the publicly available Web site information as described above, with any Member Firms regarding their liquidity providing levels as well as the levels of any other Member Firms. 4 The matrix will list in the left column each individual security in which liquidity has been provided over the course of the month. Listed to the right of each security will be total liquidity provided on a month to date

(MTD)basis. The exception to this will be the last trading day of the month in which total MTD liquidity provided will be reflected on an hourly basis. Across the top of the matrix, anonymous firm names will be listed with Firm A always representing the top liquidity provider in each issue, Firm B always representing the second top provider and Firm C always representing the third top provider and will continue through Firm Z. In the event that more than 26 firms provide liquidity in a security, the firm names will continue with Firm AA and so on. To the extent that fewer than 26 firms have provided liquidity in a security, those firms that have not provided liquidity will be assigned a zero value in the matrix. *See* E-mail from Kathy Marshall, Vice President, Business Strategist, BSE, to Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission dated July 26, 2007. This proposed method of revenue sharing is designed to attract volume to BeX. Firms do not need to reach high overall volume levels in an effort to participate in this revenue sharing program. It is designed to provide incentives for competitive quoting as well as liquidity provision in less active securities. BeX believes that this proposal is fair and equitable and would lead to broad participation by firms of all sizes with varied business models. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and further the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among member and issues and other persons using Exchange facilities. The Exchange believes that sharing revenue with the top three liquidity providers creates a more competitive environment than sharing revenue, on a pro-rata basis, with all participants because it creates an incentive for firms to provide competitive quotes in order to participate. The Exchange also believes that sharing revenue across all participants, on a pro-rata basis, would dilute the amount shared and thus make it non-competitive with prevailing fee structures of other market centers. In addition, the Exchange believes that sharing on a per symbol basis (as opposed to an aggregate basis) allows for a broader participation of firms with various business models, as opposed to the typical larger firms, with high volumes, who are generally eligible to participate in programs with tiered volume structures. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 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 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 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-BSE-2007-37 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-2007-37. 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 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-2007-37 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16054 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56231; File No. SR-CBOE 2007-73] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Assess, on a Retroactive Basis, Certain CBOE and CBSX Market Data Fees August 9, 2007. On June 28, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to retroactively apply certain recently modified market data fees. The proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56000 (July 2, 2007), 72 FR 37554. The Exchange proposes to retroactively apply the recent increase in monthly fees for enhanced TickerXpress (“TX”) 4 market data from $200 per month to $300 per month and the recently adopted fee of $100 per TX user per month for use of TX software for the use and display of market data. The Exchange also proposes to retroactively apply CBSX's recently adopted market data infrastructure fee, which is a monthly fee assessed to recoup fees paid to a third-party market data vendor and other parties to help establish facilities at CBSX through which the third-party market data vendor can provide CBSX participants with certain market data. The market data infrastructure fee is equal to $19,400 divided by the number of CBSX participants receiving the market data. 4 TX is an Exchange service that supplies market data to Exchange market makers trading on the Hybrid Trading System. These changes in the Exchange's market data fees became effective on June 1, 2007, pursuant to a previous rule change submitted by the Exchange. 5 The Exchange now proposes to retroactively apply these fee changes for the period April 1, 2007, through May 31, 2007. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55882 (June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32931 (June 14, 2007) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2007-54). 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. 6 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 which requires the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using Exchange facilities. In approving this proposal, the Commission notes the Exchange's statements that:

(1)Retroactively applying the TX market data fees will compensate the Exchange for its increased costs in providing the TX data and will partially offset the license fees paid by the Exchange to its third-party provider for making the TX software available to users during this time period; and

(2)retroactively applying the market data infrastructure fee will enable the Exchange to recoup the fees CBSX paid during this time period for providing the infrastructure to make the market data available to CBSX participants. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2007-73) be, and it hereby is, approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16053 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56237; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-043] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, To Remove Provisions Governing the Operation of the ACES System August 9, 2007. I. Introduction On April 25, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to remove its rule provisions governing the operation of the ACES system. The Exchange filed Amendments No. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change on May 29, 2007, and June 5, 2007, respectively. The proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 18, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55892 (June 11, 2007), 72 FR 33550 (“Notice”). II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposes to delete the Rule 6200 Series and Rule 7026, which govern the operations of the ACES system. The Exchange's rule book contains rules pertaining to “facilities” of the exchange, and the Exchange believes that ACES is not a “facility” within the meaning of the Act. The ACES system is a neutral communications service that allows Nasdaq members and non-members to route orders to one another. Market participants may execute orders received through ACES in any manner that they deem consistent with duties of best execution and other applicable industry obligations. ACES does not effect trade executions or report executed trades to the consolidated tape. Because ACES merely allows market participants to route orders to one another for execution and does not effect trade executions or report executed trades to the consolidated tape, the Exchange does not believe that ACES constitutes a facility of a national securities exchange within the meaning of the Act, nor does it believe it is required to file or maintain rules regarding the operation of ACES. In the past, when Nasdaq's parent entity, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., was a subsidiary of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), ACES rules were not included in the NASD Manual, based on Nasdaq's and NASD's understanding that ACES is not a facility of the NASD. These rules were, nevertheless, approved as Nasdaq rules in connection with Nasdaq's registration as a national securities exchange. Nasdaq now proposes the deletion of these rules based on its conclusion that ACES is not a Nasdaq facility and that therefore these rules are not required under the Act. However, Nasdaq represented that it would file a proposed rule change if ACES were modified in a manner that caused it to be deemed an exchange facility or if ACES fees were tied to fees for, or usage of, exchange services. III. Discussion After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 4 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 5 because the ACES system is not a “facility” of the Exchange as that term is defined in section 3 of the Act. 6 4 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). Sections 6(b) 7 and 19(b)(1) 8 of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 9 require a national securities exchange to file its rules with the Commission. Section 3(a)(27) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4 define the “rules” of an exchange with reference to its “facilities.” In particular, a rule of an exchange includes “any material aspect of the operation of the facilities” of the exchange or any statement with respect to “the rights, obligations or privileges” of exchange members or persons having or seeking access to the facilities of the exchange. 11 Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines “facility,” when used with respect to an exchange, to include: 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 10 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4. Its premises, tangible or intangible property whether on the premises or not, any right to the use of such premises or property or any services thereof for the purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction on an exchange (including, among other things, any system of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the exchange), and any right of the exchange to the use of any property or service. 12 12 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). The Commission agrees with the Exchange's conclusion that ACES, as currently operated, is not a facility of the Exchange. The Exchange has represented that ACES is a “pure router” that allows one subscriber (the “routing subscriber”) to send an order from a Nasdaq workstation directly to the order management system of another ACES subscriber (the “receiving subscriber”). Moreover, the Exchange has represented that the ACES system is not linked with the Exchange's core systems, including the Nasdaq Market Center, the Exchange's automated system for order execution and trade reporting. It is not possible for an order to be routed to the Nasdaq Market Center via the ACES system. Once an order has been routed through ACES, the receiving subscriber may execute the order in any manner it determines to be consistent with its duty of best execution and other applicable regulatory obligations. The receiving subscriber is not required to route the order to, or execute the order on, the Nasdaq Market Center. Because the ACES system does not route orders to the Exchange, the Commission agrees with the Exchange's conclusion that ACES does not have the “purpose of effecting * * * a transaction on an exchange.” 13 13 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). The Exchange has also represented that ACES does not report executed trades. Rather, the receiving subscriber is responsible for ensuring that the execution of each order sent through ACES is reported in accordance with the applicable rules of the market center where the order was executed. 14 Thus, the Commission similarly agrees with the Exchange's conclusion that ACES does not have the “purpose of * * * reporting a transaction on an exchange.” 15 14 The ACES rules require the receiving subscriber to send an execution message to ACES so that ACES may notify the routing subscriber of the terms of the execution, *see* Nasdaq Rule 6250, but this does not constitute the “reporting” of the transaction. 15 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). A consequence of deleting the ACES rules from the Exchange's rule book is that the Exchange will be able to change its ACES rules without providing public notice via filing of proposed changes with the Commission under section 19(b) of the Act. However, the Commission notes that if the Exchange seeks to modify the operations of the ACES system in a manner that would cause the system to fit within the definition of an exchange facility, the Exchange would be required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act. For example, if the Exchange were to tie ACES fees in any way to fees for, or usage of, any Exchange services (for example, by offering a discount in ACES fees as an incentive for use of Exchange services, or vice versa), the Commission would consider such fees to be Exchange fees that must be filed with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 16 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-043), as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved. 16 *Id* . 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16090 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56232; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-69] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adoption of Revised Initial and Continued Listing Standards for the Pilot Program Expiring on November 30, 2007 August 9, 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 23, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Commission approved the current NYSE Arca initial and continued listings standards for the listing of common stock of operating companies as a six-month pilot program (“Pilot Program”). 3 The Pilot Program was subsequently extended for an additional six months, until November 30, 2007. 4 NYSE Arca is now proposing to amend the Pilot Program. The proposed amended initial listing standard will exclude from qualification some companies that currently qualify to list but whose size or financial performance is not consistent with that of the kind of issuer NYSE Arca intends to list on the NYSE Arca Marketplace. The amendments to the continued listing standards will increase certain of the numerical requirements of common stock Continued Listing Standard One to set the continued listing requirements at a level that is more consistent with the proposed higher initial listing requirements. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at *www.nysearca.com* , at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54796 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 69166 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-85). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55838 (May 31, 2007), 72 FR 31642 (June 7, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-51). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Commission approved the current NYSE Arca initial and continued listings standards for the listing of common stock of operating companies as a six-month Pilot Program. NYSE Arca subsequently extended the Pilot Program for an additional six months until November 30, 2007 and now proposes to amend the Pilot Program. Based on its experience in the initial six-month period, NYSE Arca has concluded that the listing standards adopted under the Pilot Program would qualify many companies for listing that are much smaller than the minimum size it wishes to include in its target market. The proposed amended initial listing standard will exclude from qualification some companies that currently qualify to list but whose size or financial performance is not consistent with that of the kind of issuer NYSE Arca intends to list on the NYSE Arca Marketplace. The amendments to the continued listing standards will increase certain of the numerical requirements of common stock Continued Listing Standard One to set the continued listing requirements at a level that is more consistent with the proposed higher initial listing requirements. The current NYSE Arca listings standards require for initial listing that, at the time of initial listing, the listed class of common stock shall have: 5 5 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(c). • At least 1.1 million publicly held shares. • A closing price per share of $5 or more. • A minimum of 400 round lot shareholders. In addition, the requirements of one of Standards One, Two or Three below must be met: Standard One • The issuer of the security had annual income from continuing operations before income taxes of at least $1 million in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years. • The market value of publicly held shares is at least $8 million. • The issuer of the security has stockholders' equity of at least $15 million. Standard Two • The issuer of the security has stockholders' equity of at least $30 million. • The market value of publicly held shares is at least $18 million. • The issuer has a two-year operating history. Standard Three • The market value of publicly held shares is at least $20 million. • The issuer has: ○ A market value of listed securities of at least $75 million (currently traded issuers must meet this requirement and the $5 closing price requirement for 90 consecutive trading days prior to applying for listing); or ○ Total assets and total revenue of at least $75 million each for the most recently completed fiscal year or in each of two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years. NYSE Arca proposes to eliminate Standards One and Two and require all issuers to qualify under an amended version of existing Standard Three. The market value of publicly held shares requirement of Standard Three will be raised from $20 million to $45 million. All issuers will be required to meet the market value of listed shares alternative of Standard Three, which will be raised from $75 million to $150 million. In addition, the issuer of the security will be required to meet two of the following four conditions: • Total assets of at least $75 million. • Total revenues of at least $50 million for the most recently completed fiscal year. • Stockholders' equity of at least $50 million. • Positive pre-tax earnings in the most recently completed fiscal year. The other existing requirements of Standard Three will continue to be applied in their current form. NYSE Arca also proposes to amend Rule 5.5(b) to increase the numerical requirements of common stock Continued Listing Standard One as follows: • The publicly held shares requirement is raised from 750,000 to 1.1 million shares. • The market value of publicly held shares requirement is raised from $5 million to $15 million. In addition, the stockholders' equity continued listing requirement will be raised from $10 million to $15 million. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 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, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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

(410)965-4639. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Liability Insurance Requirements Section 303(b)(3) of the SSPA requires non-attorney representatives who want to participate in the direct payment demonstration project to secure and maintain “professional liability insurance, or equivalent insurance, which the Commissioner has determined to be adequate to protect claimants in the event of malpractice by the representative.” In a notice published in the **Federal Register** on January 13, 2005, we announced that to satisfy this requirement the insurance policy must be underwritten by a firm that is licensed to provide insurance in the State in which the non-attorney representative conducts business (70 FR 2447, 2449). At the time, we believed this requirement was needed to ensure legitimacy of the insurance policy and provide protection for the claimants in the event of the carrier's insolvency. In the 2007 application period, several applicants relied on insurance policies obtained from so-called “surplus lines” insurers or “non-admitted” carriers. These carriers provide insurance for unusual or unique situations where coverage is unavailable from authorized or traditional insurers. Though some of those carriers may be licensed to provide insurance in the particular State where the policyholder conducts business, more often they are not. Therefore, under the guidance set out in our January 13, 2005 notice, policies underwritten by such “surplus lines” insurers or “non-admitted” carriers generally would not satisfy the insurance prerequisite for participation in the direct payment demonstration project. Upon further examination, we have decided that insurance provided by surplus lines insurers or non-admitted carriers can be adequate to protect claimants in the event of malpractice by the representative. Surplus lines insurance policies are legally valid contracts. As with traditional professional liability insurance policies, the quality, type and scope of the professional liability protection afforded by the “surplus” policy depends exclusively on the provisions of the policy itself and has no relationship to whether the policy was issued by an admitted/licensed carrier (conventional policies) or a “surplus lines” carrier. Our earlier guidance that the policy “must be underwritten by a firm that is licensed to provide insurance in the State in which the non-attorney representative conducts business” unintentionally excluded such policies from consideration. Accordingly, we have decided to revise our earlier guidance. We have decided that it is sufficient that a representative's insurance policy is underwritten by a business entity that is legally permitted to provide professional liability insurance in the State in which the non-attorney representative conducts business. Except for the change described above, the liability insurance requirements previously announced remain in effect. Available Reference Materials In our January 13, 2005 notice, we also announced that we would provide each applicant eligible to sit for the examination required by SSPA section 303(b)(4) a copy of the Compilation of Social Security Laws, Volume 1 (Compilation), to use as an open-book reference during the examination. Based on experience we have gained in the first four examinations, we have decided that providing a limited number of copies of the Compilation at each testing site for test-takers to consult during the examination is sufficient. Therefore, instead of giving each test-taker a copy of the Compilation, we will make available at each testing site sufficient copies of the Compilation for use by test-takers during the examination. Additional Information Additional information on the demonstration project is available on our Representing Claimants Web site at *http://www.ssa.gov/representation/* or can be obtained by writing to: • CPS Human Resource Services, SSA Non-Attorney Representative Demonstration Project, 241 Lathrop Way, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95815-4242; or • E-mail, sent to *SSA@cps.ca.gov.;* or • Telephone, toll free at 1-800-376-5728. The local number in Sacramento is 916-263-3600. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) Dated: August 8, 2007. Marianna LaCanfora, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. [FR Doc. E7-16187 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5895] Bureau of Political-Military Affairs: Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; Notifications to the Congress of Proposed Commercial Export Licenses SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) and in compliance with section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776). DATES: Effective Date: As shown on each of the 17 letters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan M. Clark, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State

(202)663-2023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the **Federal Register** when they are transmitted to Congress or as soon thereafter as practicable. May 24, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves defense services associated with the Helicopter Long Range Active Sonar (HELRAS) Mod. 2 System for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program for end use by the Canadian Ministry of National Defense. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 027-07. May 25, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, re-certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of defense articles abroad in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical data, assistance, and manufacturing know-how to Japan for the manufacture of the AN/ASA-70 Tactical Display Group for the Japanese P-3C Anti-Submarine Program. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 028-07. May 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical data, assistance and manufacturing know-how for the manufacture of the AN-APS-137B(V)5 Radar for the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF). The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 042-07. June 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement for the export of technical data, defense services, and defense articles in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services, and defense articles to support the manufacture of GF-15 aircraft major structural components. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 015-07. June 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services, and defense articles to support the sale of the Sensor Fused Weapon to the United Arab Emirates Air Force and Air Defense. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification, which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 017-07. June 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical data, defense articles and defense services, including manufacturing know-how, to Germany for the manufacture of 120mm tank training ammunition. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 018-07. June 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical data, assistance and manufacturing know-how to Japan for the manufacture of the AN/APX-72 Identification Friend or Foe

(IFF)Transponder for integration into Japanese Ministry of Defense aircraft and ships. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 040-07. June 7, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of major defense equipment and defense articles in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer to Commonwealth of Australia of additional technical data, defense services, and defense articles necessary to support the Royal Australian Air Forces F/A-18 Aircraft Mid-Life Hornet Upgrade Program. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 041-07. June 8, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement for the export of technical data, defense services, and defense articles in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and defense articles to support the sale of four C-17A aircraft to Canada. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 061-07. June 15, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles or defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical data, defense services, and defense articles for licensed production of the Airborne Early warning and Control System (AEW & C) for ultimate sale to and end-use by the Republic of Korea, Ministry of National Defense. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 054-07. June 19, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, technical data, and defense systems to Norway for the manufacture of Gunner's Thermal Systems. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 021-07. June 19, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement for defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction described in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, technical data, and defense services for the LITENING Advanced Targeting Pods in support of the Australian F/A-18 Program. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs* . Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 023-07. June 19, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms sold commercially under contract in the amount of $1,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of firearms to Colombia for the ultimate use by the Colombian Armed Forces. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs* . Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 038-07. June 19, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) &

(d)of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles and services to the Republic of Korea for the manufacture of selected components, and the assembly of the Korean Electro-Optical Tracking System for end-use by the Republic of Korea Army. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs* . Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 044-07. June 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification concerns future commercial activities with Russia, Ukraine, and Norway related to the launch of all commercial and foreign non-commercial satellites from the Pacific Ocean utilizing a modified oil platform. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 071-07. June 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification concerns future commercial activities with Russia related to the launch of all commercial and foreign non-commercial satellites from Kazakhstan. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 072-07. June 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, *Speaker of the House of Representatives.* Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more. The transaction contained in the attached certification concerns future commercial activities related to the co-development of the Galaxy Express space launch vehicle upgrade program for Japan. The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations. More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned. Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Bergner, *Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.* Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 073-07. Dated: August 8, 2007. Susan M. Clark, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16176 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2006-25755] Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport; Denial of Request for Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of request for extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This document denies the request to extend the comment period on the FAA's notice of proposed amendments to its December 12, 2006, order that places temporary limitations on flight operations at New York's LaGuardia Airport. The notice of proposed amendments was published in the **Federal Register** on August 7, 2007. DATES: The closing date for comments on the notice of proposed amendments published on August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44214), remains September 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may review the petition to extend the public comment period and other comments under Docket Number FAA-2006-25755 through the DOT Docket Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* or at 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Komal Jain, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone

(202)267-3073; e-mail *komal.jain@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 27, 2006, the FAA adopted operational limitations on New York LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia) flights through an order (the Order) that became effective on January 1, 2007. 71 FR 77854. On August 7, 2007, the FAA subsequently proposed several amendments to the Order to improve the administration of the congestion management program at LaGuardia. Comments to that document are to be received on or before September 6, 2007. By written request, dated August 7, 2007, the Air Transport Association of America, Inc.

(ATA)and the Regional Airline Association

(RAA)asked the FAA to extend the comment period for an additional 30 days. The FAA does not believe that an extension of time is necessary. The ATA and RAA recognized that a substantial number of the proposed amendments to the Order are technical corrections that they themselves identified to the FAA. While it may be difficult to coordinate comments from the petitioners' association during this “peak vacation” period and the Labor Day holiday, the FAA believes there is a stronger interest in the timely issuance of these amendments. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2007. James W. Whitlow, Deputy Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 07-4003 Filed 8-10-07; 3:38 pm]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR

U.S. Code