Notices. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

11,866 words·~54 min read·/register/2007/08/20/07-4039

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing (TAC Nos. J60622 and J60626); Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Docket Nos. 50-30 and 50-185, Sandusky, OH *Dates of amendment requests:* May 18, 2005, May 12, 2006, February 9, 2007, and January 10, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The licensee (National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)) has proposed to amend the Facility Operating Licenses (TR-3 and R-93) of the two research reactors located at Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Sandusky, Ohio.

The amendments to the licenses include revisions to the Technical Specifications (TS), and incorporating a Final Status Survey Plan (Revision 1). The same TS set applies equally to both licenses. The Decommissioning Plan

(DP)for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility, approved by the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March 20, 2002, will remained unchanged. Proposed revisions to the TS include but are not limited to administrative changes, revised facility descriptions, new definitions and minor program changes. Specific proposed revisions include the following: Section 1 of the TS is revised to state that the TS apply to all activities conducted under the provisions of the Licenses. It clarifies that both reactors are both shutdown and dismantled, and there is no fuel remaining at the facility. The facility was shutdown and ceased operations in March 1973. The last shipment of irradiated fuel was made on May 25, 1973, and all remaining fuel contaminated components were shipped offsite by July 1973. Disposal of the Plum Brock reactor vessel was completed in early 2005 and the core support components for the Mock Up reactor were removed by the summer of 2003. The ‘Definitions' in Section 2 of the TS are renumbered to comply with ANSI/ANS-15.1 format, and the definitions that follow are numbered as subparagraphs with the format 1.1.x. Some definitions are revised, deleted, or redefined. Section 2.0 of the TS are revised to identify that there are no Safety Limits or Limiting Safety System Settings applicable to the facility, since all reactor components and fuel have been removed. Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the TS were revised to identify that the Access Control Program was changed to more accurately reflect the current site conditions. Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the TS relating to Alarm Response are revised so that the Containment Vessel

(CV)Door Open alarm was removed from this section and incorporated into the specifications related to ‘Containment'. The specifications related to sump level alarms are revised to provide quantitative criteria on when sump level alarms are required rather than the subjective criteria of ‘kept dry'. The requirement for the sump alarms to annunciate at the Plum Brook Station Communications Center is also revised to require that the alarms annunciate at a remote manned location which is typically the Plum Brook Station Communications Center. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 relating to Containment and Ventilation and the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to reflect that the fact the airborne activity must be controlled during all decommissioning activities rather than only during the time period that a ‘major portion of the source term is present'. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 relating to Radiation and Effluent Monitoring and the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to reflect the current site conditions and to provide assurance that a program is implemented that assures the worker exposure to radiological hazards is maintained as low as reasonably achievable and in compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 limits. In addition, they assure that effluents from the facility are adequately monitored to protect the public and environment from radiological hazards. Sections 5.0 relating to Site Features are revised to conform to the format suggested in ANSI/ANS-15.1 and to more accurately reflect the current site conditions that have evolved as the decommissioning program has progressed. Sections 6.0 relating to Administrative Controls contain multiple revisions. The requirement to perform an annual review is relocated to section 6.9.2 to incorporate into the annual review performed at the direction of the Executive Safety Board. The requirement to have Level 3 approval of temporary procedure changes is removed since such changes are controlled through site established administrative procedures; and, the responsibilities of the Decommissioning Safety Committee are more clearly defined. The last sentence in Section 6.5 of the TS is deleted. Section 6.5 of the TS is revised to read, “The Senior Project Engineer will have direct authority over all activities that take place at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility

(PBRF)and will be the primary interface with on-site Contractors supporting the Decommissioning project.” The last sentence of Section 6.7 of the TS is revised to read, “The authority to fulfill this responsibility and perform these functions will be granted by Chairman of the NASA Safety, Health, and Environmental Board.” The second sentence in Section 6.9.2 of the TS is revised to read, “Personnel performing these reviews shall be appropriately qualified and experienced, and shall be members of, or appointed by the NASA Safety, Health, and Environmental Board.” Figure 1 on page 24 of the Technical Specifications is revised to reflect the change in the name of the Executive Safety Board and to depict the direct reporting relationship of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection staff to the NASA Project Radiation Safety Officer. Licenses TR-3 and R-93 are also revised. The revision numbers associated with issuance of this License Amendment are inserted in place of “Amendment 11” and “Amendment 7” respectively. Paragraph 2.B.3 is deleted and replaced with a new paragraph 2.B.4 to read, “Pursuant to the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components.” Paragraph 2.A of License TR-3 is revised by changing the last sentence to read, “The PBRF is described in the application for the full-term license dated January 10, 1964 and amendments thereto.” Paragraph 3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, “NASA is authorized to decommission the facility in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility approved by the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March 20, 2002, as revised pursuant to paragraph 3.A.1 below, and to perform Final Status Surveys in accordance with the Final Status Survey Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility* * *.” Paragraph 3.A of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, “This amendment authorizes inclusion of the Decommissioning Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility and the Final Status Survey Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility and their supplements as supplements to the Final Safety Analysis Report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5).” Paragraph 3.A.1 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, “The licensee may make changes to the above plans and revisions without prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval provided the proposed changes do not:” The change changes the “word” in the original to “plans”, and would allow the licensee to make changes to the Final Status Survey Plan without prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. Paragraph 3.A.1.c of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, “* * * increase the derived concentration guideline level and related minimum detectable concentrations (for both scan and fixed measurement methods);” Paragraph 3.A.3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is deleted. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

(1)Do the changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes are administrative, would not change plant systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2)Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated.

(3)Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment, operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the proposed revisions and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *NRC Branch Chief:* Rebecca Tadesse. The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment, operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the proposed revisions and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *NRC Branch Chief:* Rebecca Tadesse. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Chad Glenn, Project Manager, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-16313 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of August 20, 2007: A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting. Chairman Cox, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 23, 2007 will be: Formal orders of investigations; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Resolution of litigation claims; and Other matters related to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: August 15, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16379 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56251; File No. SR-Amex-2004-27] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 4 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Fixed Return Options August 14, 2007. I. Introduction On April 29, 2004, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to list and trade Fixed Return Options (“FROs”). Amex filed Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the proposal on September 26, 2006, April 19, 2007, May 23, 2007, and August 14, 2007, respectively. 3 The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 7, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3. This order provides notice and solicits comments from interested persons regarding Amendment No. 4 and approves the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 2 replaced the original filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. Amendment No. 3 revised the rule text relating to margin requirements. Amendment No. 4 corrected minor errors in the text of the proposed rules, provided representations concerning surveillance procedures and systems capacity, clarified the use of composite prices in calculating the volume weighted average price (“VWAP”), and clarified the proposed position reporting requirements. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55843 (June 1, 2007), 72 FR 31636. II. Description of the Proposal A. FROs Generally Amex proposes to list and trade cash-settled, European-style FROs on individual stocks and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that satisfy specified listing criteria. FROs are binary options and, as such, differ from the options currently traded on U.S. options exchanges by providing a discontinuous or non-linear payout. An in-the-money FRO will pay a fixed sum at expiration regardless of the magnitude of the difference between the option's exercise price and the settlement price. Amex proposes to list Finish High SM (“Finish High”) FROs, which will return $100 per contract if the settlement price of the underlying security is above the strike price at expiration, and Finish Low SM (“Finish Low”) FROs, which will return $100 per contract if the settlement price of the underlying security is below the strike price at expiration. 5 Any in-the-money FRO will be exercised automatically at expiration. 6 5 *See* Amex Rule 900FRO(b)(2) and (3). 6 *See* Amex Rule 980FRO. B. Listing Standards The initial listing criteria for FROs require that an individual stock underlying an FRO meet the criteria for underlying securities in Amex Rule 915, “Criteria for Underlying Securities,” and, in addition, have:

(1)Minimum market capitalization of at least $40 billion;

(2)minimum trading volume, in all markets in which the security trades, of at least one billion shares in the preceding 12 months;

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

(4)minimum average daily trading value of at least $200 million during the previous six months; and

(5)a minimum market price per share of at least $10, as measured by the closing price reported in the primary listed market in which the security is traded, over the previous five consecutive business days preceding the date on which Amex submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. 7 An ETF underlying an FRO would have to meet these five additional criteria along with the requirements of Amex Rule 915, except for the minimum market capitalization requirement. 8 7 *See* Amex Rule 915FRO, Commentary .01. 8 *See* Amex Rule 915FRO, Commentary .02. The continued listing criteria for FROs require that an individual stock underlying an FRO satisfy the requirements of Amex Rule 916, “Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities,” and, in addition, have:

(1)Minimum market capitalization of at least $30 billion;

(2)minimum trading volume, in all markets trading the security, of at least one billion shares in the preceding 12 months;

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

(4)minimum average daily trading value of at least $125 million during the last six months; and

(5)an underlying market price per share of at least $5 at the time additional series are listed for trading. 9 An ETF underlying an FRO would have to meet these five additional criteria along with the requirements of Amex Rule 916, except for the minimum market capitalization requirement. 10 9 *See* Amex Rule 916FRO, Commentary .01. 10 *See* Amex Rule 916FRO, Commentary .03. C. Role of OCC The OCC plans to file a proposal to issue, clear, and settle FROs. According to Amex, the OCC also plans to file a proposal to revise the Options Disclosure Document (“ODD”) required under Rule 9b-1 of the Act 11 to incorporate FROs. 11 17 CFR 240.9b-1. D. Volume Weighted Average Price Settlement To reduce concerns regarding potential price manipulation at expiration due to the “all-or-nothing” return provided by an FRO, Amex proposes to settle FROs using an all-day volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) based on trading in the underlying security on the last trading day prior to expiration. 12 To calculate the VWAP, Amex will use composite prices during regular trading hours as reported by industry price vendors. 13 If the security underlying an FRO does not trade or is unavailable during regular trading hours at expiration, the settlement price may be fixed pursuant to the OCC's rules on a basis that the OCC believes is appropriate under the circumstances, including using the last sale price during regular trading hours on the most recent trading day for which a last sale price is available. 14 12 *See* Amex Rule 910FRO(a). The VWAP for an underlying security is the sum of the dollar value of reported trades (price multiplied by the number of shares traded), divided by the total number of shares traded during the entire last day of trading prior to expiration. *See* Amex Rule 900FRO(b)(4). 13 *See* Amex Rule 910FRO(a). Composite prices are prices reported to the consolidated tape from any participating exchange or market. Amex notes that the OCC currently uses composite pricing in connection with the settlement of expiring equity options. The composite closing price is the last reported sale price from any eligible trade source ( *i.e.* , primary listing market or participating regional market). It is not an average price. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49045 (January 8, 2004), 69 FR 2377 (January 15, 2004) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-OCC-2003-01). 14 *See* Amex Rule 910FRO(a), Commentary .01. Amex will publish and disseminate the current value of the VWAP calculation for FROs at least every 15 seconds throughout the last trading day prior to expiration. Amex will disseminate the VWAP settlement price as the official settlement price for FROs and will make it publicly available through various market data vendors and on the Amex Web site at *http://www.amex.com.* E. Position and Exercise Limits The position limits for FROs will be 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market, and positions in FROs will not be aggregated with positions in other options on the same underlying stock or ETF for purposes of determining compliance with the position limits. 15 Amex is not proposing exercise limits for FROs because FROs will be exercised automatically at expiration if the settlement price of the underlying security is greater than the strike price of a Finish High FRO or less than the strike price of a Finish Low FRO. 16 FROs will not be subject to any qualified hedge exemptions from position limits. 15 *See* Amex Rule 904FRO(a) and (b). 16 *See* Amex Rule 980FRO. Positions in FROs must be reported to Amex when an account establishes an aggregate position on the same side of the market of 200 or more contracts, 17 and the provisions of Amex Rule 906, “Reporting of Options Positions,” will apply to FROs. 18 Amex Rule 906(b) requires that a member, other than an Amex market maker, that maintains an FRO position in excess of 10,000 contracts on the same side of the market, for its own account or the account of its customer, report certain information to Amex, including whether the position is hedged, a description of the hedge, and, if applicable, a description of the collateral. Amex believes that the reporting requirements under Amex Rule 906 and the surveillance procedures for hedged positions will enable Amex to closely monitor sizable FRO positions and corresponding hedges. 19 17 *See* Amex Rule 906FRO. 18 *See* Amex Rule 906FRO. 19 Amex notes that hedge information for member firm and customer accounts with 200 or more contracts are reported electronically via the Large Options Position Report. In addition, Amex notes that specialist and registered options trader account information is reported to Amex by the member's clearing firm. F. Margin The minimum margin on any FRO carried short in a customer's account is the difference between $100 and the proceeds from the sale of the FRO, which must remain in the customer's account. 20 A customer account with a long position in an FRO must initially deposit and maintain margin equal to at least 100% of the purchase price of the FRO. 21 20 *See* Amex Rule 462(d)(10)(D). 21 *See* Amex Rule 462(d)(10)(B). No margin is required for an FRO position carried short against an existing long position in the same FRO, or when the writer's obligation is secured by a specific deposit or escrow deposit meeting the entire $100 obligation under the FRO. 22 22 *See* Amex Rule 462(d)(10)(F). G. Bid-Ask Differentials and Minimum Price Variations A specialist or registered trader is expected to quote with no more than $0.25 between the bid and the offer for each FRO contract, except during the last trading day prior to expiration, when the maximum width may be $0.50. 23 In addition, when the bid/ask differential in the underlying security is greater than $0.25, or $0.50 on the last trading day prior to expiration, the permissible quote width for an in-the-money FRO series may be identical to the quote width in the underlying security. 24 23 *See* Amex Rule 958FRO. 24 *See* Amex Rule 958FRO. Amex Rule 952, “Minimum Price Variations,” generally provides that the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for an option is:

(i)$0.05 for options quoted under $3 a contract; and

(ii)$0.10 for options quoted at $3 a contract or greater. For the options classes included in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program, the MPV is:

(i)$0.01 for options quoted under $3 a contract; and

(ii)$0.05 for options quoted at $3 a contract or greater. 25 The MPV for FROs in classes not included in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program will be $0.05, and $0.01 for classes in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program. 25 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55162 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 5738 (February 1, 2007). In addition, options on the Power Shares QQQ Trust trade at an MPV of $0.01 for all options premiums. Amex will apply to FROs the existing industry convention of multiplying an option's quoted price by $100 to determine its premium. For example, for an FRO that is quoted at $0.50, an investor would pay $50.00 ($0.50 × 100). H. Other Considerations Amex Rule 903, “Series of Options Open for Trading,” will apply to FROs. 26 Pursuant to Amex Rule 903, Amex generally opens up to four expiration months for an options class when it initially lists the class for trading. Amex will use the same expiration cycle for FROs as it uses for traditional options. 26 *See* Amex Rule 903FRO. Similarly, Amex will use the strike price intervals provided in Amex Rule 903, “Series of Options Open for Trading,” and the related commentaries for FROs. Securities underlying options classes included in the $1 strike price pilot program 27 and the 2 1/2 -point strike price program 28 may underlie FROs, provided that they meet the listing standards for FROs. 27 *See* Amex Rule 903, Commentary .06. 28 *See* Amex Rule 903, Commentary .07. Amex represents that symbols will be created for FROs that represent the underlying security, the fact that the option is an FRO rather than a traditional put or call, the expiration date, strike price, and the exchange(s) trading the FRO. III. Discussion 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. 29 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 30 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that FROs will provide investors with a potentially useful investment choice. The proposal will extend to certain binary options the benefits of a listed exchange market, which include: A centralized forum for price discovery; pre- and post-trade transparency; standardized contract specifications; and the guarantee of the OCC. 29 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). 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to address potential manipulation concerns associated with FROs' non-linear return. The initial and continuing listing standards for FROs should ensure that only highly capitalized, actively traded stocks and ETFs are eligible to underlie FROs, and the settlement price for FROs is based on an all-day VWAP during the last trading day prior to expiration. These elements should reduce the potential for manipulating the stock or ETF underlying an FRO to benefit an FRO position. The Commission believes that the proposed position limits and margin rules for FROs are reasonable and consistent with the Act. The proposed position limit of 25,000 contracts in any FRO class appears to reasonably balance the promotion of a free and open market for these securities with minimization of incentives for market manipulation. The proposed margin rules appear reasonably designed to deter a member or its customer from assuming an imprudent position in FROs. In support of this proposal, Amex made the following representations: • Amex has in place an adequate surveillance program to monitor trading in FROs and intends to largely apply its existing surveillance program for options to the trading of FROs; and • Amex has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series that would result from the introduction of FROs. This approval order is based on Amex's representations. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2004-27 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2004-27. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 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-2004-27 and should be submitted on or before September 10, 2007. V. Accelerated Approval The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing of Amendment No. 4 in the **Federal Register.** In Amendment No. 4, Amex provided representations regarding surveillance and systems capacity and corrected minor errors in the text of the proposed rules. In addition, Amendment No. 4 clarified the use of composite prices in calculating the all-day VWAP that will be used to establish the settlement price for FROs, and clarified that positions of 10,000 contracts, rather than 25,000 contracts, will be subject to certain reporting requirements. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 4 clarifies and strengthens the proposal and raises no new regulatory issues. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposal, as amended, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. VI. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 31 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2004-27), as amended, is approved, on an accelerated basis. 31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 32 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 32 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-16330 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56245; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-104] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Codify the Hybrid Price Check Parameter August 14, 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 December 7, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On August 1, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.13, *CBOE Hybrid System's Automatic Execution Feature,* in order to codify an automated system feature that prevents executions at potentially erroneous prices. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Exchange'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 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 Orders that are eligible for automatic execution through the CBOE Hybrid Trading System (“Hybrid”) may be automatically executed in accordance with the provisions of CBOE Rule 6.13. Orders that are not eligible for automatic execution route on a class by class basis to PAR (the public automated routing system) or BART (the booth automated routing terminal) or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry firm's booth printer. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 6.13 to codify a description of the Exchange's price check parameter functionality, which is a functionality that could be activated in certain series of a given options class that would prevent an automatic execution of a market order from occurring outside a prescribed market width. The Exchange represents that the price check parameter is designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. Specifically, the functionality would not automatically execute eligible orders that are market orders if the width between the Exchange's best bid and best offer is not within an acceptable price range. The applicable price ranges will be determined by the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee on a series by series basis and will be announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular generally at least one day in advance. For purposes of this provision, an “acceptable price range” shall be no less than 1.5 times the corresponding bid/ask differentials in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A). 3 In addition, the Exchange is proposing that the senior official in CBOE's Control Room or two Floor Officials may grant intra-day relief by widening the acceptable price range for one or more option series. If intra-day relief is granted, it will be announced via verbal message to the trading crowd, printer message to member organizations on the trading floor, and electronic message to members that request to receive such messages. The granting of this intra-day relief will be for no more than the duration of the particular trading day. Any decision to extend relief beyond an intra-day basis would be announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular. Market orders that trigger the applicable price check parameter and, thus, that are not eligible for automatic execution, will be routed on a class by class basis to PAR or BART or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry firm's booth printer. 3 CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) sets forth the bid/ask differentials for open outcry trading, which are as follows: No more than $0.25 between the bid and offer for each option contract for which the bid is less than $2, no more than $0.40 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, no more than $0.50 where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, no more than $0.80 where the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and no more than $1.00 where the bid is more than $20. For example, the Exchange may determine to set a price check parameter that provides that market orders would not automatically execute if the width between the Exchange's best bid and best offer is $0.40 or more in a series where the bid is less than $2 ($0.40 is more than 1.5 × the standard bid/ask differential of $0.25). Assume that the market in the series is $1.65−$1.85; the bid is for 10 contracts, the next best bid is $1.50 for 10 contracts, and the next best bid is $0.50 for 10 contracts. An incoming sell order for 50 contracts would trade against the $1.65 for 10 contracts and the $1.50 for 10 contracts. 4 When the bid moves to $0.50, the price check parameter would be triggered because the width between the best bid ($0.50) and best offer ($1.85) is wider than the acceptable $0.40 price range. As a result, the remaining 30 contracts would route to PAR, BART, or the booth. 5 4 This example assumes that CBOE is at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) at each price point. If CBOE is not at the NBBO, the order would not be automatically executed at prices inferior to the NBBO and instead would route to PAR, BART, or the Hybrid Agency Liaison (“HAL”), which is a feature within Hybrid that provides automated handling in designated Hybrid option classes for qualifying electronic orders that are not automatically executed. *See* CBOE Rules 6.13(b)(iv) and 6.14. 5 Following from the example above, on an intra-day basis the senior official or two Floor Officials may determine based on market conditions to grant relief by widening the acceptable price range from $0.40 ( *e.g.* , the range might be temporarily widened so that automatic executions would not occur if the width between the best bid and best offer is $0.80 or more). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the firm quote requirements of CBOE's Rule 8.51, *Firm Disseminated Market* *Quotes* , and the Commission's Rule 602 under Regulation NMS. 6 In that regard, the Exchange notes that the Quote Rule does not require an automatic execution. 7 The Exchange also notes that it would not be disengaging its auto-ex system by this proposed rule change, but merely amending the rule to provide for certain circumstances in which market orders may not receive an automatic execution. 6 17 CFR 242.602. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47959 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34441 (June 9, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-05) (order approving Hybrid, including Hybrid's automatic execution feature). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act 8 and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to national securities exchanges and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act. 9 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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 No. SR-CBOE-2006-104 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-104. 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 CBOE. 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-CBOE-2006-104 and should be submitted on or before September 10, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16331 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56240; File No. SR-ISE-2007-49] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes on a Retroactive Basis August 13, 2007. I. Introduction On June 15, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend its Schedule of Fees on a retroactive basis. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding 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. 56005 (July 3, 2007), 72 FR 37555. II. Description of the Proposal ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to:

(1)Increase the per contract surcharge from $0.10 per contract to $0.15 per contract for options on the Russell 1000® Index (“RUI”), the Russell 2000® Index (“RUT”), and the Mini Russell 2000® Index (“RMN”); and

(2)refund surcharge fees collected for transactions in options on the iShares Russell 2000® Index Fund (“IWM”), the iShares Russell 2000® Value Index Fund (“IWN”), the iShares Russell 2000® Growth Index Fund (“IWO”), the iShares Russell 1000® Value Index Fund (“IWD”) and the iShares Russell 1000® Index Fund (“IWB”), in both cases for the period commencing January 1, 2007 and ending June 15, 2007 (the “Retroactive Period”). The Exchange proposes the surcharge increase to become effective retroactively, as of January 1, 2007. 4 4 On June 15, 2007, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change as immediately effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act that:

(1)Removes the surcharge fee for IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD and IWB from its Schedule of Fees and

(2)raises the surcharge fee from $.10 per contract to $.15 per contract for options on RUI, RUT and RMN. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55975 (June 28, 2007), 72 FR 37064 (July 6, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-48). The Exchange revised its license agreement with the Frank Russell Company (“Russell”), effective January 1, 2007. Pursuant to the revised agreement, the Exchange pays Russell $0.15 per contract to trade options on RUI, RUT and RMN. The Exchange thus proposes to increase the surcharge fee for options on RUI, RUT and RMN from $0.10 per contract to $0.15 per contract retroactive to January 1, 2007 and collect from members the applicable fees due to the Exchange for the Retroactive Period. This surcharge fee will only be charged to Exchange members with respect to non-Public Customer Orders ( *e.g.* , ISE Market Maker, non-ISE Market Maker, and Firm Proprietary orders) and shall apply to certain Linkage Orders under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2008. 5 5 Linkage Orders are defined in ISE Rule 1900(10). Under a pilot program that was recently extended and is now set to expire on July 31, 2008, these fees will also be charged to Principal Acting as Agent Orders and Principal Orders (as defined in ISE Rule 1900(10)(i)-(ii)). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128 (July 24, 2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007). Additionally, the Exchange had previously adopted a $0.10 per contract surcharge in connection with the listing and trading of options on IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD, 6 and IWB. 7 However, pursuant to the revised license agreement with Russell, the Exchange, as of January 1, 2007, no longer pays a license fee to Russell in connection with the listing and trading of options on IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD and IWB. As a result, the Exchange proposes to refund to members the surcharge fee it has collected during the Retroactive Period. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47075 (December 20, 2002), 67 FR 79673 (December 30, 2002) (SR-ISE-2002-29). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47564 (March 24, 2003), 68 FR 15256 (March 28, 2003) (SR-ISE-2003-13). III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 8 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 9 which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. Specifically, the Commission believes that application of the amendments to ISE's Schedule of Fees on a retroactive basis is appropriate and aligns revenue collected from members with license costs charged to ISE under its agreement with Russell. 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-49) is approved. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16258 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56250; File No. SR-NSCC-2007-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Allow As-Of Fixed Income Trades To Be Processed in the Continuous Net Settlement System August 14, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on July 12, 2007, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by NSCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NSCC is seeking to modify its procedures to allow as-of fixed income trades to be processed in NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”) system. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and

(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by NSCC. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change When NSCC revised and updated CNS in 2004 (referred to as the “CNS Rewrite”), it provided the capability on any settlement day to take in and process transactions due for settlement that day provided the trades are recorded or compared prior to an established cut-off time in the morning. 3 This capability is currently provided for as-of equity transactions but has not yet been expanded to as-of fixed income transactions. 4 Rather, settlement of as-of fixed income corporate debt, municipal, and unit investment trust (“UIT”) trades (corporate debt, municipal, and UIT trades are collectively referred to as “CMU” trades) matched on or after their designated settlement date currently occurs on the business day following the day they are compared. Given that settlement risks associated with CMU trades would be reduced if they settled on an accelerated basis in the same manner that as-of equity trades are settled, NSCC is proposing to enhance its fixed income processing to permit same day settlement of as-of fixed income transactions. 5 To accomplish this, NSCC proposes to amend Procedure II (Trade Comparison and Recording Service) so that CNS-eligible as-of CMU trades matched on or after their originally designated settlement date would be processed in CNS on the day they are submitted for comparison so long as they compare prior to the cut-off time established for same day settlement, which currently is 11:30 a.m. 6 As-of trades not eligible for CNS processing will settle on a trade-for-trade basis. Trades that match after the designated cut-off time will continue to be assigned a settlement date on the next business day. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50026 (July 15, 2004), 69 FR 43650 [File No. SR-NSCC-2004-01]. 4 NSCC's systems did not have the capacity for same day settling trades for fixed income transactions in 2004. 5 The settlement of cash and next day CMU trades which are compared by NSCC will continue to be the responsibility of the parties to the trades. 6 In addition, references in Procedure VII (CNS Accounting Operation) that currently note that debt securities are not eligible for such accelerated settlement would be removed. In addition, because these trades are effectively guaranteed upon comparison, risk associated with the trades will be mitigated through the existing component of the Clearing Fund formula, as set forth in Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters), that is designed to mitigate the risk to NSCC associated with trades that are processed on a settlement cycle shorter than three days. Under this component, activity specified for a shortened settlement cycle is isolated and a charge is calculated. 7 7 The component calculates a charge based on the average of a member's charges for the specified activity on the three days with the highest charges calculated for the specified activity over the most recent twenty day period. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54816 (November 27, 2006), 71 FR 69604 [File No. SR-NSCC-2006-09]. NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 8 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because it should facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities by increasing automated trade processing and by expanding the types of trades eligible for CNS netting. 8 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within thirty-five 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 ninety 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, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NSCC-2007-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-11. 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 Section, 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 NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at *www.nscc.com/legal.* All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-11 and should be submitted on or before September 10, 2007. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16329 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration

(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400, E-mail address: *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* I The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Incorporation by Reference of Oral Findings of Fact and Rationale in Wholly Favorable Written Decisions (Bench Decision Regulation)—20 CFR 404.953 and 416.1453—0960-0694. Sections 20 CFR 404.953 and 416.1453 of our regulations state that if an Administrative Law Judge makes a wholly favorable oral decision for a claimant of Title II or Title XVI payments at an administrative appeals hearing, and if this oral decision includes all findings and the rationale for the decision, the records from the oral hearing preclude the need for a written decision. This is known as the incorporation-by-reference process. These regulations also state that if the involved parties want a record of the oral decision, they may submit a written request for these records. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 2,500. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 208 hours. 2. Request for Proof(s) from Custodian of Records—20 CFR 404.703, 404.704, 404.720, 404.721, 404.723, 404.725, & 404.728—0960-NEW. SSA prepares the SSA-L707 for individuals who need help in obtaining evidence of death, marriage, or divorce in connection with claims for benefits. The information collected on the SSA-L707 is used to request and receive the needed evidence. The respondents are custodians of records including statistics and religious entities, coroners, funeral directors, attending physicians, state agencies, etc. *Type of Request:* Information Collection in Use Without an OMB Number. *Number of Respondents:* 600. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 100 hours. 3. Request for Evidence from Doctor or Hospital—20 CFR 404 Subpart I and 20 CFR 416 Subpart P—0960-0722. Claimants are required to provide medical evidence of their impairment(s) in pursuing a disability claim. SSA uses these forms to request medical evidence from sources (doctors and hospitals) where the claimant has been treated, seen or otherwise evaluated. The respondents are doctors and hospitals where the claimant has been evaluated. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Responses:* 400,000. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 100,000 hours. Form type Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Request for Evidence from a Doctor

(J1)10,000 20 15 50,000 Request for Evidence from a Hospital

(J2)10,000 20 15 50,000 Totals 20,000 100,000 4. Request for School Records—20 CFR 416.906, 416.913, 416.946—0960-0721. School records are pertinent evidence in a childhood claim for disability benefits. Administrative law judges use this form to request that evidence. This letter will be used to request school records from the school(s) which the claimant has attended for evidence relative to the claimant's impairments or ability to do age-appropriate activities. The respondents are the school(s) which the claimant has attended. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Frequency of Response:* 6. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 30,000 hours. 5. Sheltered Workshop Wage Reporting—0960-NEW. Collection Background Section 1612(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and regulations at 42 U.S.C. 1382a define remuneration received for services performed in a sheltered workshop as earned income for the Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)program. The amount of monthly wages determines an individual's SSI benefit amount. Collection Description SSA has maintained a working relationship with sheltered workshops since the inception of the SSI program. Most workshops report monthly wage totals to the local SSA office so that the client's SSI check is adjusted timely and overpayments are prevented. While participation of the workshop is strictly voluntary, they are highly motivated to report the wages because it provides a service to their clients. Sheltered Workshop reporting reduces the number of overpayments to SSI recipients. Processing these wage reports electronically reduces the cost of administering the program. SSA uses the information collected to verify and post monthly wages to the SSI recipient's record. Respondents are sheltered workshops that report monthly wages for services performed in the workshop. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Frequency of Response:* 12. *Average Burden per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,000 hours. 6. Letter to Custodian of Birth Records/Letter to Custodian of School Records—20 CFR 404.704, 404.716, 416.802, and 422.107—0960-0693. SSA prepares the SSA-L106 and SSA-L706 for individuals who need help in obtaining evidence of their age in connection with Social Security number card applications and claims for benefits. SSA also uses the SSA-L706 to determine the existence of primary evidence of age for Social Security Number

(SSN)applicants, and SSA uses both letters to verify with the issuing entity, when necessary, the authenticity of the record submitted by the SSN applicant or claimant. The respondents are schools, state and local bureaus of vital statistics, and religious entities. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 7,200. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,200 hours. II The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Function Report—Child: Birth to 1st Birthday (SSA-3375), Age 1 to 3rd Birthday (SSA-3376), Age 3 to 6th Birthday (SSA-3377), Age 6 to 12th Birthday (SSA-3378), and Age 12 to 18th Birthday (SSA-3379)—20 CFR 416.912—0960-0542. State Agency adjudicative teams use the information gathered by these forms in combination with other medical functional evidence to form a complete picture of a child's ability to function. This information is used to help determine if a child is disabled, especially in cases in which disability cannot be found on medical grounds alone. The respondents are applicants for Title XVI childhood disability benefits and their caregivers. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 550,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 183,333 hours. 2. Annual Registration Statement Identifying Separated Participants With Deferred Benefits, Schedule SSA—0960-0606. Schedule SSA is a form filed annually as part of a series of pension plan documents required by section 6057 of the Internal Revenue Service Code. Administrators of pension benefit plans are required to report specific information on future plan benefits for those participants who left plan coverage during the year. SSA maintains the information until a claim for Social Security benefits has been approved. At that time, SSA notifies the beneficiary of his/her potential eligibility for payments from the private pension plan. The respondents are administrators of pension benefit plans or their service providers employed to prepare the Schedule SSA on behalf of the pension benefit plan. Below are the estimates of the cost and hour burdens for completing and filing Schedule SSA(s). We have used an average to estimate the hour burden. However, the burden may be greater or smaller depending on whether the respondent is a large or small pension benefit plan and how many Schedule SSA's are filed in a given year. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 88,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 2.5 hours. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 220,000 hours. *Estimated Annual Cost Burden for All Respondents:* $12,194,400. Dated: August 14, 2007. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-16232 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5897] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Cecil Beaton: Photographs From the National Portrait Gallery, London” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Cecil Beaton: Photographs from the National Portrait Gallery, London,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, from on or about October 16, 2007, until on or about January 6, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8052). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 14, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16327 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5896] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Georges Seurat: The Drawings” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Georges Seurat: The Drawings”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about October 28, 2007, until on or about January 7, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 9, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16328 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads have petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236, as detailed below. Docket Number FRA-2007-28885 *Applicants:* CSX Transportation, Incorporated, Mr. C.M. King, Chief Engineer, Communications and Signals, 500 Water Street, SC J-350, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. Virginia Railway Express, Mr. Dale Zehner, Suite 202, 1500 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. CSX Transportation, Incorporated

(CSXT)and Virginia Railway Express

(VRE)jointly seek approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the signal system on VRE Yard Lead Track (Milepost CFP-53.2) on CSXT's Baltimore Division, RF&P Subdivision, at Massaponax, Virginia. The proposed changes consist of the discontinuance and removal of the bidirectional automatic block signal system (Rules 261-ABS), a traffic control system on approximately 2,000 feet of VRE Yard Lead Track, and the conversion of this section of trackage into an “other than main track” operation (Rule 96). Authorized train speeds will be governed by Rule 46. The reason given for the proposed changes is that present-day operations do not warrant retention of the signal system. Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicants at the address listed above. FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing. All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by Docket Number FRA-2007-28885 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site; *Fax:* 202-493-2251; *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; or *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 of the U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-16266 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision [AC-13: OTS Nos. 15220 and H-4426] Beacon Federal, East Syracuse, NY, and Beacon Federal Bancorp., Inc., East Syracuse, NY; Approval of Conversion Application Notice is hereby given that on August 10, 2007, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Beacon Federal, East Syracuse, New York, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail: *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov* ) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center, Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, New Jersey 07311. Dated: August 14, 2007. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. Sandra E. Evans, Legal Information Assistant. [FR Doc. 07-4039 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

CFR