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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-08-21 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Notices

Notices. Notice of availability

24,446 words·~111 min read·/register/2007/08/21/07-4073

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [HLWRS-ISG-04] Preclosure Safety Analysis—Human Reliability Analysis; Availability of Final Interim Staff Guidance Document AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the availability of the final interim staff guidance
(ISG)document, “HLWRS-ISG-04 Preclosure Safety Analysis—Human Reliability Analysis,” and NRC responses to the public comments received on the draft document. The ISG clarifies or refines guidance provided in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan
(YMRP)(NUREG-1804, Revision 2, July 2003). The YMRP provides guidance to NRC staff for evaluating a potential license application
(LA)for a high-level radioactive waste geologic repository constructed or operated at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. ADDRESSES: HLWRS-ISG-04 is available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* From this site, a member of the public can access NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for ISG-04 is ML071910213. If an individual does not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or
(301)415-4737, or (by e-mail), at *pdr@nrc.gov.* This document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, Mail Stop: O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee. *NRC Responses to Public Comments on HLWRS-ISG-04:* In preparing final NRC Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety (HLWRS) ISG HLWRS-ISG-04, “Preclosure Safety Analysis—Human Reliability Analysis,” ADAMS ML071910213, the NRC staff reviewed and considered 34 comments received from two different organizations during the public comment period. Several comments regarded questions about the regulatory basis for human reliability analysis (HRA), and perceived ambiguity in expectations. Several related comments addressed the use of empirical data and their relationship to HRA. The remaining comments included recommendations on specific changes to the ISG. Three comments on the ISG process were consistent with comments made earlier on HLWRS-ISG-01, HLWRS-ISG-02, and HLWRS-ISG-03, and were addressed in responses to public comment on HLWRS-ISG-01 [see 71 FR 57582, “Response to Comments 13
(a)and (b)”]. The following discussion indicates how the comments were addressed, and the changes, if any, made to ISG-04 as a result of the comments. Line numbers in the following comments refer to draft HLWRS-ISG-04, ADAMS ML070820387, which was made available for public comment on April 19, 2007 (72 FR 19729). *Comment 1.* Both commenters noted that ISG lines 79-82 appear to imply that “direct manual operator actions,” and “administrative and procedural safety controls” are important to safety (ITS), which is inconsistent with the definition of ITS in 10 CFR 63.2. 10 CFR 63.2 defines ITS as applying to structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)that are engineered features of the geologic repository operations area (GROA), and therefore, actions and controls would not be ITS. One commenter recommended specific revisions to ISG lines 79-82. *Response:* NRC agrees with the commenters. However, note that 10 CFR 63.112(e), which is quoted in the “Regulatory Bases” section, in ISG lines 196-202, also states that the preclosure safety analysis
(PCSA)of the GROA must include an analysis of the performance of the ITS SSCs. “This analysis identifies and describes the controls that are relied on to limit or prevent potential event sequences or mitigate their consequences. This analysis also identifies measures taken to ensure the availability of safety systems.” Therefore, the PCSA analyses for ITS SSCs also relate to controls, and measures to ensure safety system availability, and these could be tied to human actions. The ISG has been revised to change ISG lines 79-82 to: “Examples of human actions that are risk-significant include:
(1)Direct manual operator actions that are related to reliability of important-to-safety
(ITS)structures, systems, or components (SSCs);
(2)administrative or procedure safety controls that are related to reliability of ITS SSCs and involve human actions; or
(3)human actions that contribute significantly to the reliability of ITS SSCs.” *Comment 2.* One commenter stated that there are two broad categories of methods to be considered for quantification in HRA:
(1)Methods based on actual surrogate human performance data from other facilities ( *e.g.* , chemical processes, interim storage, industrial operations, and nuclear power plants); and
(2)generic second-generation methods in which probability distributions for human reliability are based on a qualitative assessment of context and performance factors. The commenter states that ISG-04 provides a considerable amount of guidance and cautions about the use of nuclear power plant data, but provides no explicit guidance on the use of non-nuclear data and no guidance on the use of generic second-generation quantification methods [such as Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM) and Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique (HEART)]. The commenter recommends adding text to:
(a)Recognize human reliability data sources in addition to those associated with nuclear power plants; specifically, the commenter recommends adding a sentence at the beginning of Line 138, as follows: “Use of any quantification method, either data-driven or contextual, requires justification that it applies to Geologic Repository Operations Area
(GROA)operations”;
(b)provide guidance on the use of generic second-generation methods. *Response.*
(a)NRC agrees with the commenter that data sources and approaches other than those associated with nuclear power plants may be used as part of the basis for estimating reliability, provided that there is sufficient technical justification to do so. The discussion in the ISG on the use of nuclear power plant data and approaches, and associated justification needed, applies to the use of data and approaches from other sources, as well. ISG lines 138-139 have been revised as follows: “Commercial nuclear power applications” has been changed to “applications for commercial nuclear power plants or other facilities.” ISG line 142 has been revised as follows: “Commercial nuclear-power-plant HRAs” has been changed to “HRAs for commercial nuclear-power plants or other facilities.” The sentence in ISG lines 142-145 has been revised to “Staff should expect the use of any quantification method, either data-driven or model-driven, to be justified regarding its applicability to GROA operations.”
(b)The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)has the flexibility to use any quantification method it chooses, including CREAM or HEART, provided there is sufficient technical basis to use the method for a particular application. The following sentence is added after ISG line 136: “DOE has the flexibility to choose any method(s) to support the PCSA, given there is a sufficient technical basis for applying the method(s) and approach(es) to the GROA.” *Comment 3.* One commenter noted that the term “risk-significant” is used in many ways in this ISG without a clear definition. The commenter recommended the following definition of risk-significant in the Glossary: “Risk-significant: Important contributor to the probabilities or the consequences of a single event sequence.” *Response:* NRC agrees with the suggestion to clarify the meaning of “risk-significant” in the Part 63 context, and add a definition for “risk-significant” to the Glossary. Risk-significance would be assessed according to those aspects of the LA and technical bases that bear on regulatory compliance with 10 CFR Part 63, which is based on:
(a)Whether an event sequence is category 1, category 2, or beyond category 2; and
(b)whether the projected consequences meets the performance objective for that category. NRC expects the data and information provided to be commensurate with supporting these determinations. For example, staff expectations will be informed by:
(1)The extent to which particular SSCs and controls are relied on to prevent or reduce the occurrence of event sequences;
(2)the severity of the potential radiological consequences associated with these event sequences; and
(3)the potential effects of uncertainty on regulatory compliance (e.g., the proximity of the associated frequency to the categorization limits for preclosure event sequences, and the proximity of the consequences to regulatory performance requirements). See also the discussion under “Uncertainty,” in HLWRS-ISG-02, p. 4, and the discussion under “Introduction,” to Appendix A, in HLWRS-ISG-02, p. 11. The ISG has been revised as follows. The following has been added to the end of ISG line 64: “The goal of the review is to evaluate whether there is reasonable assurance that the performance objectives in Part 63 will be met, which in turn is determined by:
(a)Whether an identified event sequence is category 1, category 2, or beyond category 2, and
(b)whether the projected consequences meet the performance objective for that category. NRC expects the data and information in an LA to be commensurate with supporting these determinations, rather than supporting precise quantification for all event sequences.” The following definition has been added to the Glossary, after ISG line 379: “ *Risk-significant:* Making a significant contribution to the probabilities and/or consequences of one or more event sequences that have the potential to exceed the performance objectives of Part 63 during GROA operations.” In addition, the following sentence has been added to the beginning of the Glossary: “The definitions provided in this glossary are specific to the way the terms are used in this ISG, and may not be universally appropriate or applicable.” *Comment 4.* One commenter stated that the term “full-blown” is not a clear term, and recommended replacing the term with “full HRA.” *Response:* NRC agrees with the commenter. ISG line 56 has been revised to change “full-blown HRA” to “full HRA (i.e., encompassing all elements of a complete HRA).” *Comment 5.* One commenter recommended that ISG lines 117-119 be revised to delete the phrase, “Because recoveries are not possible for some waste-facility initiators, * * *.” The commenter stated that the reason for reducing the frequency of occurrence of an event sequence or minimizing the probability of a hazard is not necessarily because of recovery difficulty. *Response.* The intent of the sentence in lines 117-119 is to point out that for some waste-facility operational events or initiators (e.g., a drop event), recovery actions, such as actuation of safety systems to prevent the events-in-progress, may not be possible. Therefore, special attention to the associated human-induced initiators and the sequence of events leading up to the initiators may be of special interest in the staff review of the HRA/PCSA. ISG lines 117-119 have been revised to change “Because * * * hazards)” to “For waste-facility initiators that may not have safeguards to prevent events-in-progress, once initiated (e.g., drop events).” *Comment 6.* One commenter stated that the cited nine regulatory bases in ISG lines 173-215 do not specifically address HRA within the context of the PCSA. The commenter recommended adding the definition of an *Event Sequence,* from 10 CFR 63.2 at ISG line 173, to specifically show the regulatory basis for HRA within the context of the PCSA. *Response:* NRC agrees with the commenter's suggestion. The following has been added to the beginning of item 1. at ISG line 173: “ *Event sequence* means a series of actions and/or occurrences within the natural and engineered components of a geologic repository operations area that could potentially lead to exposure of individuals to radiation. An event sequence includes one or more initiating events and associated combinations of repository system component failures, including those produced by the action or inaction of operating personnel.” *Comment 7.* One commenter stated that the term “key” is used in a variety of phrases in lines 220, 223, 446, 461, and 476; yet, the term “key” is not defined and its use in the ISG implies multiple definitions. The commenter recommends providing a definition of the term “key,” in the Glossary, that states, “Key: Relates to an important contributor to the probability or the consequence of a single event sequence.” *Response.* The meaning of the term, “key,” in the ISG, and recommended changes to the YMRP, is the same as it is in plain language (i.e., important or fundamental). No further definition is necessary. No change was made to ISG as a result of these comments. *Comment 8.* One commenter recommended adding definitions to the Glossary for the following terms that are used throughout the ISG, and suggested a definition for each of these terms:
(a)Human-induced initiator,
(b)human reliability analysis,
(c)pre-initiator human failure event, and
(d)post-initiator human failure event. *Response.* NRC agrees with the commenter. The ISG has been revised, as follows, to add the recommended terms, to the Glossary, which begins on ISG line 352, except the term “Pre-initiator Human Failure Event,” which has been defined already in ISG lines 375-379 as “Pre-initiators.” The “Pre-initiators” term has been revised to “Pre-initiator Human Failure Event (HFE).” *Human-Induced Initiator:* An HFE that represents actions that cause or lead to an initiating event. The GROA is expected to employ various manually controlled waste-handling and transport equipment that may be subject to HFEs that could initiate an event sequence. *Human Reliability Analysis (HRA):* HRA evaluates the potential for, and mechanisms of, human errors that may affect the safety of the GROA operations, including consideration of human reliability as it relates to design and programs such as training of personnel. The main objectives of the HRA are: 1. To ensure that human actions that could affect event sequences are systematically identified, screened, analyzed, and incorporated into the safety analysis in a traceable manner; 2. Where necessary, to quantify the probabilities of success and failure of human actions for event-sequence quantification and screening. *Post-Initiator Human Failure Event (HFE):* Post-initiator HFEs include both operator actions and inactions that have the result of degraded plant/facility conditions. An example of such an HFE is the failure to manually actuate or manipulate systems or equipment that are required for response to an initiating event, to prevent propagation of an event sequence, or to mitigate its consequences. Post-initiator HFEs can be further divided into recovery and non-recovery events, as appropriate for a given event sequence. *Comment 9.* One commenter stated that the definitions for error of commission and error of omission use the term “degraded plant state,” which does not apply to the GROA. The commenter recommends revising lines 354-355 and line 358 by replacing “degraded plant state” with “event sequence.” *Response* . NRC agrees with the commenter that reference to the “degraded plant state” or “plant configuration,” in the definitions of *Error of Commission* and *Error of Omission,* in ISG lines 353-358, is not appropriate for the GROA. ISG lines 354-355 and 357-358 have been revised as follows: “Plant configuration” is changed to “facility configuration,” and “degraded plant state” is changed to “degraded facility state that may lead to an event sequence.” *Comment 10.* One commenter stated that although the discussion in ISG lines 50-64 is useful, the reference, in footnote 3, to Regulatory Guide 1.174, is general in nature and not directly applicable to the PCSA. The commenter recommends deleting footnote 3 from the ISG. *Response.* NRC agrees with the commenter that the reference to Regulatory Guide 1.174, in ISG footnote 3, is general in nature and not directly applicable to the Part 63 PCSA. However, as stated in footnote 3, the general discussion on the application of NRC's risk-informed regulatory principles is useful for other regulatory applications. Therefore, NRC disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to delete ISG footnote 3. No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. *Comment 11.* One commenter submitted several closely related comments, stating that the draft ISG lacks a sound regulatory basis, in that it is built on a presumption that DOE will be conducting an HRA that goes beyond what is required by Part 63. The commenter adds that the introduction section of the draft ISG on page 1 discusses HRA “* * * as if it were a stand-alone requirement for conducting the PCSA,” when “* * * HRA should more appropriately be considered one of many possible elements of preclosure performance.” The commenter, although recognizing that the paragraph on ISG page 2, lines 50-64, provides a more appropriate representation of how the HRA concepts should be used by the NRC staff, cites specific examples in the ISG that appear to be inconsistent with these concepts. The commenter's examples include the use of the phrase, “the HRA review,” in ISG page 1; and the mention of “the HRA,” the “HRA approach,” or “an HRA for the GROA,” in ISG lines 103, 108, 123, 154, and 168, as if a full HRA were required. The commenter also states that the ISG statement on page 2 that staff should not expect a full HRA including quantification of all human error probabilities in the PCSA, seems inconsistent with later ISG statements (lines 87-89) which suggest reviewers should verify that the HRA for risk-significant processes at the GROA was performed following a complete and technically appropriate HRA process, with follow-on discussion of “* * * elements of a highly quantitative HRA process.” *Response.* NRC disagrees with the commenter. Part 63 requires a PCSA, supported with adequate technical bases in risk-significant areas. Human reliability has been shown to be a key component in operations at industrial facilities similar to the GROA. The PCSA should address any aspects of human involvement, in pre-closure operations, that have a bearing on the performance criteria. The term “HRA” is used broadly to encompass any aspect of the PCSA that addresses human involvement. The HRA is not a stand-alone analysis, but rather a part of the PCSA that is required (10 CFR 63.112) to demonstrate compliance with Part 63 (10 CFR 63.111). As stated in ISG lines 2-4 and 50-64, the staff review of human reliability is in the context of the PCSA, and is not beyond what is required by Part 63. Furthermore, the ISG explicitly states (ISG lines 82-84), “Staff should tailor the scope and emphasis of its review to the approach taken in the LA, and the extent to which human actions are (or are not) relied on to meet 10 CFR Part 63 performance objectives”; and (ISG lines 55-57) that the review should be risk-informed, and staff should not expect a full HRA, including quantification of all human-error probabilities in the PCSA. Note that even for risk-significant processes at the GROA, ISG lines 89-98 explicitly state that the quantification HRA steps (c)-(e), may not be needed. For clarification, the ISG has been revised as follows. The following sentence has been added to the introduction, in line 7: “In this ISG, “the HRA” refers to any consideration of human performance in the PCSA analyses, i.e., the evaluation of the potential for, and mechanisms of, human errors that may affect safety of GROA operations, including consideration of human reliability, as it relates to design and programs such as training of personnel.” ISG line 5 has been revised to change “the HRA review” to “in the review of HRA in the PCSA.” ISG lines 38-39 have been revised to change “The HRA supporting an LA” to “The HRA supporting the PCSA in an LA.” The following sentence has been added to the paragraph preceding ISG line 65: “Staff should also recognize that the analysis of how human performance fits into planned operations and meeting performance goals at the GROA may appear in many different parts of the PCSA, and in varying scopes (in other words, human performance is likely to be addressed in different relevant parts of the PCSA, rather than addressed together in one place).” The sentence in ISG lines 65-66 has been changed to the following: “The guidance in this ISG is written with the expectation that staff will seek the assistance of an HRA specialist(s) for review of risk-significant aspects of an LA affected by human performance.” ISG line 78 has been revised to change “qualitative analyses in the HRA” to “the qualitative HRA analyses.” ISG lines 123-124 have been revised to change “an HRA for the GROA” to “HRA in the GROA PCSA.” *Comment 12.* One commenter stated that the ISG imposes, on the license applicant (DOE), an expectation that information be provided, in the initial LA, that would be more appropriately developed later in the licensing and repository development process—and the expectation being conveyed by this ISG not only exceeds what is required, but goes beyond what is expected to be reasonably available at the time of the initial LA. The commenter adds that the programs and processes will be developed over time, as the repository moves toward operational status, and thus need not be fully developed at the time of the initial LA. *Response.* NRC disagrees with the commenter that the ISG imposes an expectation on DOE to provide information beyond what is required to demonstrate compliance with Part 63. For NRC staff to review the LA, DOE needs to provide sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with Part 63—including the basis for safe operations, and where safety relies on procedural controls (and human performance), versus hardware components. The expectations conveyed in this ISG are consistent with 10 CFR 63.21(a) that “The application must be as complete as possible in light of information that is reasonably available at the time of docketing.” The Technical Review Guidance contained in the ISG provides staff guidance on verifying that appropriate technical bases are provided in the LA for the PCSA, with respect to human reliability. The subsection, “Relationship to Programmatic Review and Licensing Specifications,” that begins on ISG line 153, specifically recognizes that certain assumptions may need to be verified later and included as probable subjects for license conditions in the LA. Note also that Part 63 requires one LA, with two regulatory decisions: Whether to grant a construction authorization in accordance with 10 CFR 63.31, and whether to grant the license to receive and possess, in accordance with 10 CFR 63.41, after construction of the facility is substantially complete. NRC recognizes that additional information may become available in different stages of the licensing process, but at each stage, DOE must provide sufficient information to support that stage. See Commission's discussion accompanying issuance of Part 63 (66 FR 55738-9; November 2, 2001). No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. *Comment 13* . One commenter submitted two closely related comments, stating that the bases, for the parenthetical material in ISG lines 36-37, and statement in ISG lines 115-116 and footnote 6, discussing differences in nuclear power plant versus nuclear materials facility operations, are unclear or speculative, since many of the fuel-handling operations at the repository will largely be a subset of the types of operations carried out at nuclear power plants. The commenter adds that there is no reason for NRC to convey additional expectations for HRA at the repository over and above what is expected at a power plant and suggests that, unless there is a basis, the parenthetical material in ISG lines 36-37 should be removed. *Response.* NRC agrees with the commenter that the fuel-handling operations at the repository are likely to be similar to the fuel-handling operations at a nuclear power plant. The intent of the parenthetical material in ISG lines 36-37 and the statement in ISG lines 115-116 is to compare at-power nuclear power plant *power-generation* operations, where rule-based control-room tasks may dominate, versus *materials-handling* activities at nuclear materials facilities, where skill-based manual tasks may dominate the operations. The reason for these statements is to alert staff to these differences since, to date, much of the experience with HRAs, and focus of available guidance documents, are on HRAs for nuclear power-generation operations (not including *fuel-handling* activities at nuclear power plants). Furthermore, the ISG does not imply staff expectations for HRA beyond what is expected for power plants. Therefore, the staff disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the parenthetical material in ISG lines 36-37 be removed. The ISG, however, has been revised, as follows, to clarify the staff's intent: In ISG line 36, “(e.g., nuclear power plant,” is revised to “(e.g., at-power nuclear power-generation operations.” In ISG line 37, “nuclear materials facility” is revised to “nuclear materials facility activities.” *Comment 14.* One commenter stated that the first paragraph beginning on ISG line 69 appears internally contradictory, since it first discusses the qualitative HRA tasks that are performed as part of an overall PCSA (i.e., the conceptual understanding of human performance in the planned operations), and then identifies tasks, such as identification of HFEs and unsafe actions, as qualitative tasks. The commenter stated that:
(a)It is not appropriate to describe the activities of identification of HFEs and unsafe actions “* * * as qualitative when they are the initial steps of a quantitative analysis”;
(b)“Most reliability analysis input for PCSA should not require explicit HRA. The reliability of most important to safety
(ITS)systems, structures, and components
(SSCs)should be determined by using empirical data collected from similar operations.” *Response.*
(a)NRC agrees with the commenter that the tasks encompassed by a conceptual understanding of human performance provide an important basis of, and hence could be considered a part of, and the initial steps, of a quantitative analysis. Similarly, the tasks of identification of HFEs, unsafe actions, and factors that influence performance *are* qualitative tasks related to a mechanistic understanding of human performance, and can be considered as the initial steps of a quantitative analysis.
(b)NRC agrees with the commenter that reliability analysis inputs based on the use of empirical data, in many cases, may not require explicit HRA. However, DOE would need to justify that the empirical data are applicable to the planned GROA operations, including any human performance aspects. (See also response to comment 15 below.) For clarification, the ISG has been revised as follows. ISG lines 69-74 are replaced with the following sentences: “It is important to have a conceptual understanding of how human performance fits into the planned GROA operations and safety. Although quantified reliability estimates are typically needed for categorizing event sequences, much of the HRA review should focus on the HRA tasks, that are performed as part of an overall PCSA, that explain the conceptual understanding of human performance in the planned operations. These tasks are part of the qualitative HRA analysis and would include, for example:
(1)Identification of HFEs and unsafe actions;
(2)identification of important factors influencing human performance; and
(3)selection of appropriate HRA quantification method(s), if considered necessary.” The following entry has been added to the ISG glossary: “ *Qualitative HRA Analysis:* HRA tasks that include:
(1)Identification of HFEs and unsafe actions;
(2)identification of important factors influencing human performance; and
(3)selection of appropriate HRA quantification method(s), if considered necessary.” *Comment 15.* One commenter submitted several closely related comments about the use of empirical data and their relationship to HRA. The commenter's statements include: • A qualitative evaluation justifying the use of empirical data for the repository PCSA is a reasonable NRC staff expectation, but the applicant should be required to perform quantitative HRA as part of the reliability inputs only if human factors were not part of the existing data sets. • “HRA is only one method of quantifying the human elements of risk. A preferable, and likely more accurate, method would be to use empirical reliability and event data that quantifies the total operational reliability including human influenced circumstances.” • Regarding the crane data from NUREG-1774, “Human error is implicit in the data. If the applicant can show or commit to programs that have comparable rigor to the programs under which the data was collected, separate HRA should not be necessary.” • ISG lines 428-431 guide NRC staff reviewers to determine whether the LA provides justification for data sources, based on relevant qualitative considerations—namely HRA activities:
(a)Identification of HFEs, and associated unsafe actions, to be considered in the overall PCSA; and
(b)identification of important factors influencing human performance. The commenter stated that this is an inappropriate implied requirement that is more appropriate for the goal of improving human performance, but is not necessary to perform safety analysis, and is not required by Part 63 . • “Items 4, 5, 6, and 7 on page 14 and 15 are more reasonable expectations of the NRC staff review of the repository license application than items 2 and 3 ( *ISG—Appendix A* ).” *Response.* As noted on ISG lines 50-54, the applicant has flexibility in its approach to demonstrate compliance with Part 63 performance objectives. DOE may choose from a variety of approaches that, with adequate technical bases, can successfully demonstrate regulatory compliance. Relying on empirical data is one possible approach. If the applicant chooses to rely on empirical data to estimate reliability of SSCs during GROA operations, staff expects a technical-basis discussion to be provided, on why the data apply to the GROA operations. In addition, see ISG lines 145-150, for guidance on staff review of use of empirical failure rates and their technical bases, with regard to human performance. If the LA relies on empirical data where human performance is an important contributor, the staff expects a qualitative evaluation that the relevant conditions at facilities from which the empirical data were obtained are similar to those expected at the GROA, since HFEs depend greatly on context (see ISG “Discussion” section, lines 28-39). NRC expects that, as part of this justification of “similarity,” of the operations at the empirical data facilities and the GROA, DOE would include a discussion on conditions relevant to human performance, if human performance were an important contributor. Item 6, in the Appendix beginning on ISG line 461, also clarifies the information pertinent to the data source (NUREG-1774), in the hypothetical example and potential discussion, that could be included in an LA, to address differences between the GROA and data source facilities. No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. *Comment 16.* One commenter submitted two closely related comments, stating that, “The sections titled, “Consideration of Applicability of Data Approaches,” beginning on page 4, line 137, and “Relationship to Programmatic Review and Licensing Specifications,” beginning on page 5, line 153, are more reasonable than * * * other parts of the Draft ISG,” with one exception (see next sentence). The last sentence, starting at ISG line 167, in the section titled “Relationship to Programmatic Review and Licensing Specifications,” should be clarified or deleted, because:
(a)The term “the HRA” incorrectly presumes a full HRA is necessary; and
(b)the phrase “relevant programmatic elements of the HRA” is not clearly defined. *Response.*
(a)See response to Comment 11 above.
(b)The purpose of this section is to highlight the dependency between HRA and programs such as training. Risk-significant elements of the PCSA and HRA that rely on assumptions about the adequacy of training and other programs are expected to be identified explicitly, and possibly identified as probable subjects for license specifications in the LA (requirements for future implementation, to ensure that the technical bases of the PCSA are valid). For further clarification, ISG line 167 has been revised to change “programmatic elements of the HRA” to “programmatic elements supporting the HRA.” *Comment 17.* One commenter was concerned that the proposed additions of “key human actions” and “human factors engineering,” to the YMRP, described in ISG lines 220, 223, 292, 296, 300, 304, 308, 312, 316, and 320, “ * * * may imply that staff LA review should be to verify improvement of human performance, rather than to determine if regulatory requirements are met.” The commenter suggested that warnings should be placed, in the appropriate sections of the YMRP, stating that the purpose of the staff review is to determine regulatory compliance. *Response.* NRC disagrees with the commenter. NRC believes that the staff understands clearly that the LA review is to verify compliance with Part 63, and that the change suggested by the commenter is not necessary. The proposed additions of the phrase “key human actions” to the YMRP are to alert the staff to the need to confirm that descriptions of the GROA operations in the LA include the key actions that operators would have to perform to maintain safety. Similarly, the phrase, “human factors engineering,” was added to the YMRP, to alert the staff to verify that the quality assurance personnel, assigned by DOE to perform independent review of the plans for conduct of normal activities, including the written operating procedures, have experience and competence in the area of human engineering. No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. *Comment 18.* One commenter recommended changing lines 252 and 253 to (addition italic): “Verify that *any necessary* human reliability analysis is consistent with * * *.” *Response.* NRC agrees with the commenter. However, the word “necessary” is not included. DOE has the flexibility to choose from a variety of approaches for different aspects of the LA. HRA may be chosen as one of multiple alternative possible approaches, rather than the only necessary approach, for a particular aspect of the LA. The ISG has been revised as follows. ISG line 108 has been changed from “the HRA” to “any HRA in the LA.” ISG lines 252-253 have been changed from “Verify that the human reliability analysis is consistent with * * * ” to “Verify that any human reliability analysis in the license application is consistent with * * *.” *Comment 19.* One commenter noted that on ISG lines 415-417, the concept of “important to human reliability” is introduced.
(a)The commenter stated that this term is not defined in regulation and is unnecessary in the draft ISG context.
(b)The commenter recommended truncating the sentence as follows, “ * * * the data accurately reflect the characteristics or features of the GROA,” in particular because it is not just the human reliability aspects that need to be accurately reflected in the applicant's safety analysis. *Response.*
(a)“Important to human reliability” is not introduced as a regulatory concept, but rather used as plain language. The purpose of this phrase is to remind review staff to keep a risk-informed focus. Not every characteristic or feature of the GROA will be important to risk contribution from human reliability; the review focus should be on those characteristics and features that are significant with respect to human reliability.
(b)NRC recognizes that human reliability aspects are not the totality of a PCSA. The scope of this ISG, though, is specifically to provide guidance on reviewing any human reliability aspects of a PCSA. No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. *Comment 20.* One commenter stated that the quote, from NUREG-1774, on ISG lines 422-427, that the percentage of “crane issue reports caused by poor human performance” has increased over time and averaged between 70-80 percent of the reports, should not be taken to mean that human performance is getting worse over time, and NRC should not establish any regulatory expectations based on such an assumption. *Response.* NRC is not adding expectations based on these statistics reported in NUREG-1774. NRC recognizes there could be many factors, known and unknown, that may be driving the statistics. The intent of quoting the statistics in the ISG is to show that human performance did contribute significantly to the rate of load drops from cranes in the empirical data in this hypothetical example. To help clarify, the ISG is revised to add the following sentence starting in line 425: “The reason for citing this statistic is not to imply that human performance is deteriorating over time, but as an indicator that human performance *does* contribute significantly to events in the empirical data in this hypothetical example.” *Comment 21.* One commenter stated that the statement in item 6 on ISG lines 491-493 that the NRC staff review should look for a “rigorous performance-monitoring program that might compensate for elements missing from the NUREG-1774 facilities” would not be a necessary part of the LA unless the applicant claimed better crane reliability than the empirical data in NUREG-1774. *Response.* NRC disagrees with the commenter. The ISG does not direct NRC staff review to look for “ * * * a rigorous performance-monitoring program that might compensate for elements missing from the NUREG-1774 facilities.” ISG lines 487-493 discuss a hypothetical scenario where there are differences, in the conditions at the facilities from which the empirical data were obtained, compared to those at the GROA. The ISG lists examples of what the LA might provide as part of the technical basis for whatever empirical rate(s) are chosen. “Rigorous performance-monitoring program to account for uncertainties” is just one example of justification the LA may provide for using a particular empirical rate (as is, or modified). This is part of the staff review of assumptions in the analysis, and checking for justifiable inputs from a human performance perspective (which the commenter recognized is a reasonable thing to do in the LA review). No change to the ISG was made as a result of this comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Chen, Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 [Telephone:
(301)492-3197; fax number:
(301)492-3361; e-mail: *jcc2@nrc.gov* ]; or Robert K. Johnson, Senior Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 [Telephone:
(301)492-3175; fax number:
(301)492-3361; e-mail: *rkj@nrc.gov* ]. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. N. King Stablein, Chief, Project Management Branch B, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-16456 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Petition under Section 302 on China's Currency Valuation; Decision Not To Initiate Investigation AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Decision not to initiate investigation. SUMMARY: The United States Trade Representative
(USTR)has determined not to initiate an investigation under section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to a petition addressed to China's currency valuation policies because initiation of an investigation would not be effective in addressing the issues raised in the petition. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terrence J. McCartin, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for China Enforcement,
(202)395-3900; or William Busis, Associate General Counsel and Chairman of the Section 301 Committee,
(202)395-3150. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2007, the Bipartisan China Currency Action Coalition filed a petition pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Trade Act), alleging that certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of China with respect to the valuation of China's currency deny and violate international legal rights of the United States, are unjustifiable, and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. In particular, the petition alleged that China's acts, policies, and practices that maintain a fixed exchange rate vis-á-vis the U.S. dollar have resulted in a significant undervaluation of China's currency. The petition alleged that these acts, policies and practices amount to: a prohibited export subsidy under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and articles VI and XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994); exchange action under article XV of the GATT 1994 that frustrates the intent of articles I, II, III, VI, XI , and XVI of the GATT 1994; and subsidies that are inconsistent with China's obligations under articles 3, 9, and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The petition also alleged that these acts, policies, and practices of China violate international legal rights of the United States under articles IV and VIII of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, and that they burden or restrict U.S. commerce by, among other things, suppressing U.S. manufacturing for domestic consumption and the growth in U.S. exports. On June 14, 2007, the USTR determined not to initiate an investigation under section 302 of the Trade Act because, among other reasons, an investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, and practices covered in the petition. The Administration is currently involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes that initiation of an investigation under section 302 would hamper, rather than advance, Administration efforts to address China's currency valuation policies. William Busis, Chairman, Section 301 Committee. [FR Doc. E7-16455 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P PEACE CORPS Volunteer Language Testing Scores System AGENCY: Peace Corps. ACTION: Notice to add a new system of records. SUMMARY: As required under the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, the Peace Corps is giving notice of a new system of records, Volunteer Language Testing Scores System. DATES: This action will be effective without further notice on October 5, 2007 unless comments are received by September 20, 2007 that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by e-mail to *sglasow@peacecorps.gov.* Include Privacy Act System of Records in the subject line of the message. You may also submit comments by mail to Suzanne Glasow, Office of the General Counsel, Peace Corps, Suite 8200, 1111 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20526. Contact Suzanne Glasow for copies of comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Glasow, Associate General Counsel, 202-692-2150, *sglasow@peacecorps.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, provides that the public will be given a 30-day period in which to comment on the new system. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Act, requires a 40-day period in which to review the proposed system. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a, Peace Corps has provided a report on this system to OMB and the Congress. System Name: PC-32, Volunteer Language Testing Scores System. System Location: Overseas Training Division, Training and Staff Development Unit, Peace Corps, 1111 20th St., NW., Washington, DC 20526. Categories of Individuals Covered by the System: Any Peace Corps Trainee or currently serving Volunteer. Categories of Records in the System: Name, Volunteer Identification Number, gender, Social Security Number, country of service, region of service, date of birth, project type, project name or assigned sector, language background, notes, test date, language code, tester code, length of preservice training, Educational Testing Services/Teaching of Foreign Language rating, certificate of language proficiency, and reason not tested, if applicable. Authority for Maintenance of the System: The Peace Corps Act, 22 U.S.C. 2501 *et seq.* Purpose: To record Educational Testing Services/Teaching of Foreign Language rating of Peace Corps Volunteers. Routine uses of Records Maintained in the System: General routine uses A-L apply to this system. Records May Also Be Disclosed To: Peace Corps Volunteer host country officials for review of their qualifications for a program. Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System: Storage: In a computerized database. Retrievability: By name, region, gender, assigned sector, or date tested. Safeguards: Computer records are maintained in a secure, password-protected computer system. Retention and disposal: Records in the computerized database are kept for seven years after swear in and five years after close of service. System Manager: Chief, Overseas Training, Center for Field Assistance and Applied Research (CEN), 1111 20th St., NW., Washington, DC 20526. Procedures for Notification, Access, and Contesting: Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records contains a record about him or her, who wants access to his or her record, or who wants to contest the contents of a record, should make a written request to the System Manager. Requesters will be required to provide adequate identification, such as a driver's license, employee identification card, or other identifying document. Additional identification may be required in some instances. Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be changed and the corrective action sought. Complete Peace Corps Privacy Act procedures are set out in 22 CFR Part 308. Record Source Categories: Record subject and official records of Educational Testing Services/Teaching of Foreign Language rating. Exemptions Claimed for the System: None. Dated: August 15, 2007. Wilbert Bryant, Associate Director for Management. [FR Doc. E7-16366 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6051-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56255; File No. SR-Amex-2007-77] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Certain Exchange Rules Prohibiting the Entering of Limit Orders on Both Sides of the Market on a Regular and Continuous Basis August 15, 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 and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. Amex has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “non-controversial” rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4, 3 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 1000-AEMI, 1000A-AEMI, 1200-AEMI, 1200A-AEMI, 1200B-AEMI, 1500-AEMI, and Rule 1400 to eliminate the prohibition on the entering of certain limit orders in Exchange Traded Fund Shares and other equity derivative products into the Exchange's trading systems. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.amex.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In August 2001, the Exchange adopted rules restricting the entry of certain limit orders in Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Index Fund Shares, and Trust Issued Receipts. Subsequently, the Exchange adopted the same rules for trading in Commodity-Based Trust Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Paired Trust Shares, and Partnership Units when those products began trading on the Exchange. All of these products will be collectively referred to herein as “Exchange Traded Fund Shares” or “ETFs.” Specifically, the rules provide that members, acting as either principal or agent, may not permit the entry of orders into the Exchange's electronic order routing system if the orders are limit orders for the account or accounts of the same or related beneficial owners and the limit orders are entered in such a manner that the member or the beneficial owner(s) effectively is operating as a market maker by holding itself out as willing to buy and sell such securities on a regular or continuous basis. The Exchange adopted these rules because its business model at that time depended upon specialists and registered traders for competition and liquidity. To encourage participation by specialists and registered traders, the Exchange determined to limit the ability of non-specialists/registered traders to compete on equal terms within its automated systems. The Exchange determined that certain actions—simultaneous entry of limit orders to buy or sell the same ETF, multiple acquisition and liquidation of positions in the same ETF, and the entry of multiple orders at different prices in the same ETF—were tantamount to operating as a market maker and gave such members an advantage over the specialist who was required to yield priority to their orders. The adoption of these rules by the Exchange did not, however, confer market maker status on such members for any purpose under the Act or otherwise. Since that time, trading in ETFs has changed considerably. Most recently, the implementation of the AEMI trading system and the introduction of Regulation NMS have changed the Exchange's view of these restrictions and the need to encourage order flow from all types of liquidity providers, particularly member firms trading for their own proprietary accounts. ETF specialists and registered traders now have the ability to stream quotations into the AEMI system using their own proprietary quoting systems in a manner that allows them to compete effectively with orders from members' proprietary accounts. In addition, specialists and registered traders have the ability to be on parity with these orders from members. Thus, the Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to eliminate the prohibition on limit orders from members operating as market makers. Management believes the removal of these restrictions will provide a level playing field for all market participants on parity and should enhance access to the Exchange providing additional liquidity in our ETFs. The prohibition, however, will continue to apply to customer agency orders since those orders continue to have priority over specialists and registered traders. The rule prevents certain customers from obtaining an unfair advantage by acting as unregistered specialists and traders while having priority over the specialists and registered traders by virtue of their customer status. Permitting customers to enter multiple limit orders to such an extent that they are effectively acting as market makers in a secuirty, while at the same time giving them priority over all other orders on the book, gives such customers an inordinate advantage over other market participants. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 4 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 4 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 The foregoing rule change has become effective immediately pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 5 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 6 because it does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; or
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 7 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 6 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 7 Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. Amex has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. Rule 19b-4(f)(6) provides that the proposal may not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission hereby waives the 30 day pre-operative period. 8 In an order approving a proposed rule change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Commission recognized that an exchange may permit members to submit orders on both sides of the market on a regular or continuous basis, even if such members are not registered as market makers. 9 Therefore, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative period so that the proposal may become operative upon filing. 8 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38054 (December 16, 1996), 61 FR 67365, 67370 (December 20, 1996). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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-Amex-2007-77 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 No. SR-Amex-2007-77. 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 will also 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-2007-77 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16394 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56253; File No. SR-BSE-2007-40] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Extend and Expand the Pilot Program To Quote Certain Options in Pennies August 15, 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 10, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) Rules to reflect BOX's continued participation in the Penny Pilot Program, which would follow a two-phased extension schedule, first extending through March 27, 2008 and then extending through March 27, 2009. During this extension, the Exchange also proposes a corresponding expansion of the Penny Pilot Program, with each of the two expansion phases commencing when its corresponding extension phase becomes operative. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site at ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ), at the offices of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the BOX Rules to reflect BOX's continued participation in the Penny Pilot Program, namely its participation in a two-phased extension and expansion of the program. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 33, (“Penny Pilot Program”) to Chapter V (“Doing Business on BOX”) of the BOX Rules. All six options exchanges, including BOX, currently participate in the thirteen class 3 Penny Pilot Program set to expire on September 27, 2007. 4 The Exchange now proposes to both extend and expand the Penny Pilot Program; extending through March 27, 2008 and expanding with an additional twenty-two options classes during that six-month extension period. The additional twenty-two options classes would be as follows: SPDRs (SPY); Apple, Inc. (AAPL); Altria Group Inc. (MO); Dendreon Corp. (DNDN); Amgen Inc. (AMGN); Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO); QUALCOMM Inc. (QCOM); General Motors Corporation (GM); Energy Select Sector (XLE); DIAMONDS Trust, Series 1 (DIA); Oil Services HOLDRs (OIH); NYSE Euronext, Inc. (NYX); Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO); Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF); AT&T Inc. (T); Citigroup Inc. (C); Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN); Motorola Inc. (MOT); Research in Motion Ltd. (RIMM); Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (FCX); ConocoPhillips (COP); and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY). These options classes represent the most actively traded, multiply listed options classes that would, together with the current thirteen Penny Pilot classes, account for approximately 35% of total trading volume, based on OCC year-to-date trading volume data (through July 16, 2007). Excluded in this aggregate measurement are Google, NDX, and RUT because of their high premiums. 3 The thirteen option classes currently in the Pilot are: Ishares Russell 2000 (IWM); NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking Stock (QQQQ); SemiConductor Holders Trust (SMH); General Electric Company (GE); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT); Intel Corporation (INTC); Caterpillar, Inc. (CAT); Whole Foods Market, Inc. (WFMI); Texas Instruments, Inc. (TXN); Flextronics International Ltd. (FLEX); Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUNW); and Agilent Technologies, Inc. (A). 4 The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on September 27, 2007. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56149 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42450 (August 2, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-38). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55155 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2007) (SR-BSE-2006-49) (“Original Penny Pilot Program Approval Order”). Furthermore, the Exchange proposes a second extension and expansion of the Penny Pilot Program. This second proposal would extend the Penny Pilot Program for an additional year, from March 28, 2008 through March 27, 2009. During this second extension, the number of options classes trading in pennies would again increase. The Exchange proposes to add the most actively traded, multiply listed options classes up to the top 50 by volume. 5 This would bring the total number of options classes being quoted in pennies to approximately sixty-three (the original 13 pilot options classes, the 22 from the first expansion, plus the 28 additional options classes from the second expansion) for the second expansion, from March 28, 2008 to March 27, 2009. 5 The Exchange intends to file a 19(b)(3)(A) rule filing to identify the options classes to be included in the second expansion. The minimum price variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except for the QQQQs, would continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in option series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in option series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. The QQQQs would continue to be quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. During the extended and expanded pilot program, the BOX would deliver four reports to the Commission. Each report would analyze the impact of penny pricing on market quality and options system capacity. The first report would analyze the penny pilot results from May 1, 2007 through September 27, 2007. The second would analyze the results from September 28, 2007 through January 31, 2008. The third would analyze the results from February 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008. And the fourth and final report would examine the results from August 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009. These reports would be provided to the Commission within 30 days of the conclusion of the reporting period. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that 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 the proposed rule change is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to facilitating transactions in securities, 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. Based on Exchange's experience with the 13 pilot classes, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend and expand the pilot in the manner described. 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 result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments 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 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. The Commission also requests and encourages interested persons to submit comments on the following specific questions: • Whether there are circumstances under which options classes included in the Penny Pilot should be removed from the Pilot? • If so, what factors should be considered in making the determination to remove an option class from the Penny Pilot? ○ Should an objective standard be used? For instance, should an option class come out of the Penny Pilot if its trading volume drops below a threshold amount? If so, what should that threshold be? Or, should an option class come out of the Penny Pilot if it is no longer among the most actively traded options? If so, what should be considered the most-actively traded options? What statistics or analysis should be used to support a determination to remove an options class? ○ Should a more subjective analysis be allowed? If so, what factors should be taken into account? • What concerns might arise by removing an option from the Penny Pilot? How could such concerns be ameliorated? • How frequently should the analysis be undertaken ( *e.g.* , annually, bi-annually, quarterly), or should the evaluation be an automated process? • If a determination is made that an option should be removed from the Penny Pilot, how much notice should be given to market participants that the quoting increment will change? 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-2007-40 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-2007-40. 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-2007-40 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16393 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56258; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-59] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No.1 Thereto Relating to Amendments to Rule 12 to Provide Guidance Regarding New and Pending Arbitration Claims in Light of the Consolidation of NYSE Regulation into NASD DR August 15, 2007. I. Introduction On June 26, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 amending NYSE Arca Rule 12. On July 13, 2007, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On July 23, 2007, the Commission published for comment the proposed rule change, as amended, in the **Federal Register** . 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order 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 In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing, the Exchange clarified the applicability of Rule 12 as it was in effect on or prior to January 31, 2007. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 556071 (July 13, 2007), 72 FR 40184 (July 23, 2007). II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of the rule change is to provide guidance regarding both new and pending NYSE Arca Rule 12 arbitration claims in light of the consolidation of the member firm regulation function of NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”) with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”). 5 On July 30, 2007, 6 NYSE Regulation ceased to provide an arbitration program, and its arbitration department (“NYSE Arbitration”) was consolidated with that of NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. (“NASD DR”). Furthermore, NYSE Arbitration Rules 600 through 639, and Rule 347, only apply to NYSE arbitration cases pending prior to August 6, 2007, and, thereafter, the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure apply to any new cases previously subject to NYSE rules. 7 5 On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (Aug. 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-053). 6 The consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions did not occur until July 30, 2007, when definitive agreements were signed by the NYSE and NASD. *Id.* 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56208 (Aug. 6, 2007), 72 FR 45077 (Aug. 10, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-48) (approval order). Because the consolidation has already occurred, the effective date of this rule change will be when the Commission approves this proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-59) (“Effective Date”). As a result, on and after July 30, 2007, all arbitration claims filed prior to the Effective Date, and previously subject to Rule 12 or NYSE Regulation rules, will be administered by NASD DR 8 pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement with the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”). 8 NASD DR now administers NYSE Arbitration, which is governed by NYSE Regulation Rules 600 through 639. NASD DR also administers NYSE Arca arbitration, which is governed by Rule 12 and Arca Equities Rule 12. NASD DR is in the process of changing its name to FINRA DR; however, this change has not been finalized. Once this name change is completed, NYSE and NYSE Arca anticipate amending references to NASD in its rules from NASD to FINRA. In the meantime, this rule reflects the current name. Telephone conversation among James F. Duffy, General Counsel, NYSE Regulation; Lourdes Gonzalez, Assitant Chief Counsel—Sales Practices, Commission; and Michael Hershaft, Special Counsel, Commission (Aug. 14, 2007). The amendments to Rule 12 provide that:
(i)All arbitrations filed with NYSE Arca after January 31, 2007 and prior to the Effective Date, shall continue to be governed by the Code of Arbitration contained in the 600 series of the NYSE Rules;
(ii)arbitrations filed on or prior to January 31, 2007 shall continue to be governed by NYSE Arca Rule 12 as it was in effect on or prior to January 31, 2007; and
(iii)from and after the Effective Date, disputes between NYSE Arca Option Trading Permit (“OTP”) holders and NYSE Arca OTP firms, associated persons, and/or their customers will be arbitrated under the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Rule 12(a) will provide detailed guidance concerning claims involving OTP Holders and/or OTP Firms and/or associated persons that are asserted on and after the Effective Date. First, any dispute, claim or controversy between or among OTP Holders and/or OTP Firms and/or associated persons shall be arbitrated pursuant to the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Second, any dispute, claim or controversy between a customer or a non-member and an OTP Holder and/or OTP Firm, and/or associated person arising in connection with the business of such OTP Holder and/or OTP Firm and/or in connection with the activities of an associated person, shall be arbitrated pursuant to NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure as provided by any duly executed and enforceable written agreement, or upon the demand of the customer or non-member. This obligation to arbitrate shall extend only to those matters that are permitted to be arbitrated under NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Rule 12(b) will explicitly retain NYSE Arca's enforcement authority related to arbitration. Rule 12(c) also will provide that any OTP Holder and/or OTP Firm, and/or associated person of any OTP Holder and/or OTP Firm, that fails to honor an award of arbitrators rendered under the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure, or under the auspices of any other self-regulatory organization, shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 10. Rule 12(d) also will specify that the submission of any matter to arbitration as provided for under the Rule shall in no way limit or preclude any right, action or determination by NYSE Arca that it would otherwise be authorized to adopt, administer or enforce. III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 9 of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of an Exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will streamline the arbitration process and, after a transitional period, provide for a unified and more efficient arbitration forum with one set of arbitration rules and administrative procedures. This will allow resources to be devoted to maintaining and improving the NASD DR program, rather than splitting resources among duplicative programs. The Commission also believes the proposed rule change will provide for a clear and orderly transition. As a result, the proposed rule change will better protect investors and the public interest. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 10 In approving the 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). The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** . This approval allows the proposed rule change to take effect without delay. Because the proposed rule change will provide for a clear and orderly transition from NYSE Arca arbitration to NASD DR, accelerated approval is necessary to provide clarity to investors regarding the appropriate forums for pending and future arbitration claims. In light of the recent consolidation, accelerated approval of the proposed rule change also will allow NASD DR and NYSE Regulation to ensure that their arbitration programs are fully consolidated in a timely and efficient manner, without any further delay or uncertainty. For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 11 that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-NYSEArca-2007-59), be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16396 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56259; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-60] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No.1 Thereto Relating to Amendments to Arca Equities Rule 12 to Provide Guidance Regarding New and Pending Arbitration Claims in Light of the Consolidation of NYSE Regulation into NASD DR August 15, 2007. I. Introduction On June 26, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12. On July 13, 2007, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On July 23, 2007, the Commission published for comment the proposed rule change, as amended, in the **Federal Register** . 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order 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 In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing, the Exchange clarified the applicability of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 as it was in effect on or prior to January 31, 2007. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 556070 (July 13, 2007), 72 FR 40188 (July 23, 2007). II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of the rule change is to provide guidance regarding both new and pending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 arbitration claims in light of the consolidation of the member firm regulation function of NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”) with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”). 5 On July 30, 2007, 6 NYSE Regulation ceased to provide an arbitration program, and its arbitration department (“NYSE Arbitration”) was consolidated with that of NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. (“NASD DR”). Furthermore, NYSE Arbitration Rules 600 through 639, and Rule 347, only apply to NYSE arbitration cases pending prior to August 6, 2007, and, thereafter, the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure apply to any new cases previously subject to NYSE rules. 7 5 On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (Aug. 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-053). 6 The consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions did not occur until July 30, 2007, when definitive agreements were signed by the NYSE and NASD. *Id.* 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56208 (Aug. 6, 2007), 72 FR 45077 (Aug. 10, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-48) (approval order). Because the consolidation has already occurred, the effective date of this rule change will be when the Commission approves this proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-60) (“Effective Date”). As a result, on and after July 30, 2007, all arbitration claims filed prior to the Effective Date, and previously subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 or NYSE Regulation rules, will be administered by NASD DR 8 pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement with the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”). 8 NASD DR now administers NYSE Arbitration, which is governed by NYSE Regulation Rules 600 through 639. NASD DR also administers NYSE Arca arbitration, which is governed by Rule 12 and Arca Equities Rule 12. NASD DR is in the process of changing its name to FINRA DR; however, this change has not been finalized. Once this name change is completed, NYSE and NYSE Arca anticipate amending references to NASD in its rules from NASD to FINRA. In the meantime, this rule reflects the current name. Telephone conversation among James F. Duffy, General Counsel, NYSE Regulation; Lourdes Gonzalez, Assitant Chief Counsel—Sales Practices, Commission; and Michael Hershaft, Special Counsel, Commission (Aug. 14, 2007). The amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 provide that:
(i)All arbitrations filed with NYSE Arca Equities after January 31, 2007 and prior to the Effective Date, shall continue to be governed by the Code of Arbitration contained in the 600 series of the NYSE Rules;
(ii)arbitrations filed on or prior to January 31, 2007 shall continue to be governed by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 as it was in effect on or prior to January 31, 2007; and
(iii)from and after the Effective Date, disputes between NYSE Arca Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) holders, associated persons, and/or their customers will be arbitrated under the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Arca Equities Rule 12(a) will provide detailed guidance concerning claims involving ETP Holders and/or associated persons that are asserted on and after the Effective Date. First, any dispute, claim or controversy between or among ETP Holders and/or associated persons shall be arbitrated pursuant to the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Second, any dispute, claim or controversy between a customer or a non-member and an ETP Holder and/or associated person arising in connection with the business of such ETP Holder and/or in connection with the activities of an associated person, shall be arbitrated pursuant to NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure as provided by any duly executed and enforceable written agreement, or upon the demand of the customer or non-member. This obligation to arbitrate shall extend only to those matters that are permitted to be arbitrated under NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure. Rule 12(b) will explicitly retain NYSE Arca Equities' enforcement authority related to arbitration. Rule 12(c) also will provide that any ETP Holder and/or associated person, that fails to honor an award of arbitrators rendered under the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure, or under the auspices of any other self-regulatory organization, shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10. Rule 12(d) also will specify that the submission of any matter to arbitration as provided for under the Rule shall in no way limit or preclude any right, action or determination by NYSE Arca Equities that it would otherwise be authorized to adopt, administer or enforce. III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 9 of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of an Exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will streamline the arbitration process and, after a transitional period, provide for a unified and more efficient arbitration forum with one set of arbitration rules and administrative procedures. This will allow resources to be devoted to maintaining and improving the NASD DR program, rather than splitting resources among duplicative programs. The Commission also believes the proposed rule change will provide for a clear and orderly transition. As a result, the proposed rule change will better protect investors and the public interest. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 10 In approving the 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). The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** . This approval allows the proposed rule change to take effect without delay. Because the proposed rule change will provide for a clear and orderly transition from NYSE Arca Equities arbitration to NASD DR, accelerated approval is necessary to provide clarity to investors regarding the appropriate forums for pending and future arbitration claims. In light of the recent consolidation, accelerated approval of the proposed rule change also will allow NASD DR and NYSE Regulation to ensure that their arbitration programs are fully consolidated in a timely and efficient manner, without any further delay or uncertainty. For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 11 that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-NYSEArca-2007-60), be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16397 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56257; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-83] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Obsolete Rules Relating to the Trading of Gold and Silver Bullion August 15, 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 3, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities” or “Corporation”), 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. NYSE Arca has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.1 (Minimum Net Capital) by deleting Commentary .02 (Trading in Gold and Silver Bullion) thereto. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Corporation has determined that Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.1, which relates to trading in gold and silver bullion, is obsolete because the Corporation no longer trades gold and silver bullion. Therefore, the Corporation proposes to delete Commentary .02 from NYSE Arca Rule 4.1. In 2005, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that sought to delete a similar rule related to trading options on gold and silver bullion, but failed to make the same filing for its equities rules. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51281 (March 1, 2005), 70 FR 11296 (March 8, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-21) (seeking to delete certain obsolete rules, including Commentary .02 to PCX Rule 4.1, which relates to trading in gold and silver bullion). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it will promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. 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 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 The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 9 Because the foregoing proposed rule change
(1)does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest,
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition, and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days before doing so. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay in this case. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.1 no longer serves any purpose, and hereby grants the Exchange's request. 10 10 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-83 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-NYSEArca-2007-83. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-83 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 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. E7-16395 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56249; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-27] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Standardization of Rules for Equity, Index and ETF Options August 14, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on March 21, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Phlx. On July 25, 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 Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1014(c)(i)(A) relating to quote spread parameters (bid/ask differentials) and Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B) relating to purchase or sale priority for orders of 100 contracts or more, to standardize the rules such that they would apply equally to options on equities, options on exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) shares, and index options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web site at ( *http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx-rule-fil.hlm* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the above-mentioned rules so that they would apply equally to options on equities, options on ETFs, and index options. Currently, Phlx's rules concerning bid/ask differentials and split-price priority in open outcry apply either exclusively to equity and ETF options, or apply differently to equity and ETF options versus index options. In order to standardize the applicability of Phlx's rules to all options traded on Phlx, the following rule changes are proposed: Bid/Ask Differentials Currently, Phlx Rule 1014(c)(i)(A) includes only language concerning equity options. In order to clarify the applicability of the rule to all options traded on the Exchange, including index options, and options on ETFs, the proposal would specifically list index options and options on ETFs in the rule. Purchase or Sale Priority for Orders of 100 Contracts or More Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B) currently affords priority in open outcry to a member that purchases (sells) 50 or more option contracts of a particular series at a particular price or prices, at the next lower (higher) price, up to the equivalent number of option contracts of the same series that he purchased
(sold)at the higher (lower) price or prices. The rule currently applies only to transactions in equity options (including options overlying ETFs). The proposed amendment would delete the limitation of applicability to equity and ETF options from the rule; the rule would therefore apply to all options traded on the Exchange, including index options. The Exchange believes that the standardization of these rules should obviate any potential confusion among customers and Exchange members concerning their applicability. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 4 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by adopting standardized rules that apply to all options traded on the Exchange. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 No written comments were either solicited or 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 Phlx consents, the Commission shall:
(a)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(b)institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2007-27 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-Phlx-2007-27. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-27 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16392 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10969] Maine Disaster #ME-00010 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maine (FEMA-1716-DR), dated August 8, 2007. Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding. Incident Period: July 11, 2007 through July 12, 2007. Effective Date: August 8, 2007. Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/08/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Oxford. The Interest Rates Are: Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10969. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-16349 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10966 and #10967] New York Disaster #NY-00052 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated August 14, 2007. Incident: Severe Storms and Flash Flooding. Incident Period: June 19, 2007. Effective Date: August 14, 2007. Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: October 15, 2007. Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date: May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Delaware. Contiguous Counties: New York: Broome, Chenango, Greene, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster. Pennsylvania: Wayne. The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.750 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 2.875 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10966 6 and for economic injury is 10967 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are New York and Pennsylvania. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) August 14, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-16347 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10964 and #10965] Ohio Disaster #OH-00011 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of OHIO dated August 14, 2007. Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding. Incident Period: August 7, 2007. Effective Date: August 14, 2007. Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: October 15, 2007. Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date: May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Cuyahoga. Contiguous Counties: Ohio: Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit. The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 6.250 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 3.125 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10964 6 and for economic injury is 10965 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Ohio. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: August 14, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-16350 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10968] Vermont Disaster #VT-00005 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance only for the State of Vermont (FEMA-1715-DR), dated August 3, 2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* July 9, 2007 through July 11, 2007. *Effective Date:* August 3, 2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* October 2, 2007. *Addresses:* Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/03/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Orange, Washington, Windsor. The Interest Rates Are: Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10968. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-16348 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA 2007-0064] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—Match Number 1309 AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of the renewal of an existing computer matching program which is scheduled to expire on October 1, 2007. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces the renewal of an existing computer matching program that SSA is currently conducting with VA. DATES: SSA will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The renewal of the matching program will be effective as indicated below. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to
(410)965-8582 or writing to the Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1)Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2)Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards
(DIB)of the participating Federal agencies;
(3)Publish notice of the computer matching program in the **Federal Register** ;
(4)Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5)Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6)Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating or denying an individual's benefits or payments. B. SSA Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended. Dated: August 3, 2007. Manuel J. Vaz, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. Notice of Computer Matching Program, Social Security Administration
(SSA)With the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA)A. Participating Agencies SSA and VA. B. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this matching program is to establish the conditions, terms and safeguards under which VA agrees to disclose VA compensation and pension payment data to SSA. This disclosure will provide SSA with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for prescription drug subsidy assistance under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act (Act)(42 U.S.C. 1395w-114). The disclosure will also enable SSA to implement a Medicare outreach program mandated by section 1144 of title XI of the Social Security Act. Information disclosed by VA will enable SSA to identify individuals to determine their eligibility for Medicare Savings Programs
(MSP)and subsidized Medicare prescription drug coverage and enable SSA, in turn, to identify these individuals to the States. C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program The legal authority for SSA to conduct this matching activity is contained in section 1860D-14 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114) and section 1144 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-14) of the Act. D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Matching Program VA will provide SSA with electronic files containing compensation and pension payment data from its system of records entitled the Compensation, Pension, Education and Rehabilitation Records-VA (58VA21/22). Routine use 46 for VA permits the disclosure of this information. SSA will then match VA data with SSA SOR 60-0321, the MDB. SSA has published notice of its new system of records, which establishes as a routine use the disclosure of information in the MDB to VA only for the purpose of supporting SSA in the administration of the prescription drug subsidy program under the MMA of 2003 (No. 60-0321, published at 69 **Federal Register** 77816, December 28, 2004; and 71 **Federal Register** 42159-42164, July 25, 2006). E. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program The matching program will become effective upon signing of the agreement by all parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , whichever date is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met. [FR Doc. E7-16465 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2007-0063] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)Match Number 1307 AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of the renewal of an existing computer matching program which is scheduled to expire on October 1, 2007. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces the renewal of an existing computer matching program that SSA is currently conducting with OPM. DATES: SSA will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The renewal of the matching program will be effective as indicated below. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to
(410)965-8582 or writing to the Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1)Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2)Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards
(DIB)of the participating Federal agencies;
(3)Publish notice of the computer matching program in the **Federal Register** ;
(4)Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5)Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6)Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating or denying an individual's benefits or payments. B. SSA Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended. Dated: July 30, 2007. Notice of Computer Matching Program, Social Security Administration
(SSA)With the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)A. Participating Agencies SSA and OPM. B. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this matching program is to establish the conditions, terms and safeguards under which OPM agrees to disclose civil service benefit and payment data to SSA. This disclosure will provide SSA with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for prescription drug subsidy assistance under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114), as added by section 101 of Public Law 108-173, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The disclosure will also enable SSA to implement a Medicare outreach program mandated by section 1144 of title XI of the Social Security Act. Information disclosed by OPM will enable SSA to identify individuals to determine their eligibility for Medicare Savings Programs
(MSP)and subsidized Medicare prescription drug coverage and enable SSA, in turn, to identify these individuals to the States. C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program The legal authority for SSA to conduct this matching activity is contained in section 1860D-14 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114) and section 1144 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-14) of the Act. D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Matching Program Monthly, OPM will provide SSA with electronic files containing civil service benefit and payment data from the OPM system of records published as OPM/Central-1 (Civil Service and Insurance Records), on October 8, 1999 (64 FR 54930), as amended on May 3, 2000 (65 FR 25775). SSA will then match the OPM data with the SSA SOR (60-0321), the MDB. SSA has published notice of its new system of records, which establishes as a routine use the disclosure of information in the MDB to OPM only for the purpose of supporting SSA in the administration of the prescription drug subsidy program under the MMA of 2003 (No. 60-0321, published at 69 **Federal Register** 77816, December 28, 2004; and 71 **Federal Register** 42159-42164, July 25, 2006). E. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program The matching program will become effective upon signing of the agreement by all parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , whichever date is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met. [FR Doc. E7-16469 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2007-0062] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS/ACF/OCSE)—Match Number 1306 AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of the renewal of an existing computer matching program which is scheduled to expire on October 1, 2007. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces the renewal of an existing computer matching program that SSA is currently conducting with HHS/ACF/OCSE. DATES: SSA will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The renewal of the matching program will be effective as indicated below. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to
(410)965-8582 or writing to the Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1)Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2)Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards
(DIB)of the participating Federal agencies;
(3)Publish notice of the computer matching program in the **Federal Register** ;
(4)Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5)Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6)Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating or denying an individual's benefits or payments. B. SSA Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended. Dated: August 6, 2007. Manuel J. Vaz, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. Notice of Computer Matching Program, Social Security Administration
(SSA)With the Health and Human Services (HHS)/Administration for Children and Families (ACF)/Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE)A. Participating Agencies SSA and OCSE. B. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this matching program is to establish the conditions, terms and safeguards under which OCSE agrees to disclose quarterly wage and unemployment insurance data from their National Directory of New Hires database to SSA. This disclosure will provide SSA with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for prescription drug subsidy assistance under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act
(Act)42 U.S.C. 1395w-114). C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program The legal authority for SSA to conduct this matching activity is contained in section 1860D-14 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114) of the Act. D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Matching Program 1. Specified Data Elements Used in the Match a. On the basis of certain identifying information as provided by SSA to OCSE, OCSE and SSA will conduct a computerized comparison of the quarterly wage payment and unemployment insurance benefit information in the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH)maintained by OCSE in its Location and Collection
(LCS)system of records. b. SSA will match this data against the Medicare database (MDB). 2. Systems of Records The OCSE will provide SSA with electronic files containing quarterly wage and unemployment insurance data from its system of records, the Location and Collection System (ACF/OCSE, 09-90-0074). Pursuant to U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), OCSE has established routine use to disclose the subject information. SSA will match the OCSE information with electronic files from its system of records, No. 60-0321, MDB (Medicare Database). E. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program The matching program will become effective upon signing of the agreement by all parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , whichever date is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met. [FR Doc. E7-16472 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5834] Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law A meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law will take place on Friday, September 14, 2007, from 10 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m., in Room 1105 of the United States Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be chaired by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, John B. Bellinger, III, and will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. Participants at the meeting will discuss a range of issues relating to current international legal topics, including recent developments in litigation under the Alien Tort Statute; the establishment by the United Nations of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon; recent developments in U.S. non-proliferation efforts; and the use of preventive detention to deter terrorism. Entry to the building is controlled and will be facilitated by advance arrangements. Members of the public who wish to attend the session should, by Wednesday, September 12, 2007, notify the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Claims and Investment Disputes (telephone: 202-776-8351) of their name, date of birth; citizenship (country); ID number, i.e., U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), passport (country) or driver's license (state); professional affiliation, address and telephone number in order to arrange admittance. This includes admittance for government employees as well as others. All attendees must use the “C” Street entrance. One of the following valid IDs will be required for admittance: any U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. government agency ID. Because an escort is required at all times, attendees should expect to remain in the meeting for the entire morning or afternoon session. Dated: August 14, 2007. Karin L. Kizer, Attorney Adviser, Office of Claims and Investment Disputes, Office of the Legal Adviser, Executive Director Advisory, Committee on International Law, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16460 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5883] Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting on September 12, 2007, in Room 150 at the National Academy of Sciences Building at 2100 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20418. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The Commissioners plan to discuss the human resources dimension of the State Department's public diplomacy programs and operations; and legislative branch-based public diplomacy programming. The Advisory Commission was originally established under Section 604 of the United States Information and Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1469) and Section 8 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1977. It was reauthorized pursuant to Public Law 110-21 (2007). The Commission is a bipartisan panel created by Congress in 1948 to assess public diplomacy policies and programs of the U.S. government and publicly funded nongovernmental organizations. The Commission reports its findings and recommendations to the President, the Congress and the Secretary of State and the American people. Current Commission members include Barbara M. Barrett of Arizona, who is the Chairman; Harold Pachios of Maine; Ambassador Penne Percy Korth of Washington, DC; Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley of Washington, DC; Jay T. Snyder of New York; and Maria Sophia Aguirre of Washington, DC. Seating at this meeting is limited. To attend and for more information, please contact Carl Chan at
(202)203-7883. E-mail: *chanck@state.gov.* Dated: August 13, 2007. Carl Chan, Acting Executive Director, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16459 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5884] Federal Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy (“Committee”) will conduct and open meeting on Friday, September 14, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. in Room 7516 HST, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The purpose of this meeting is to review progress on the proposed recommendations that the Committee will submit to the Secretary in final form at a later date and to receive briefings from Department officials. The provisional agenda calls for the Committee to consider draft recommendations from each working group and to discuss as necessary. This meeting is open to the public from 8 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. as seating capacity allows. The Committee will meet in closed session from 10:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. to receive a secure briefing focused on classified information. It has been determined that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Section 10
(d)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b [c][1]. Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public (including government employees and Department of State employees) planning to attend should provide by no later than September 10, 2007, their name; place of birth and date of birth; citizenship (country); ID number, i.e., U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), passport (country), or drivers license number (state); professional affiliation, address, and telephone number to Carlene Roy by fax
(202)647-2524, e-mail ( *royc@state.gov* ), or telephone
(202)647-0093. Members of the public also may file a written statement with the Committee. One of the following valid photo IDs will be required for admittance to the State Department building: U.S. driver's license, passport, or U.S. Government agency ID. Members of the public must use the “C” Street entrance, after going through the exterior screening facilities. Due to escorting requirements, attendees should arrive 15 minutes before the meeting begins. For additional information, contact Madelyn Marchessault, Office of Management Policy, at
(202)647-0093 or at *Marchessaultms@state.gov.* Dated: August 10, 2007. Marguerite Coffey, Managing Director Office of Management Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-16458 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-35-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended by Pub. L. 104-13; Submission for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review; comment request. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801;
(423)751-6832. (SC: 0019QYX) Comments should be sent to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for Tennessee Valley Authority, no later than September 20, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Type of Request:* Regular submission, proposal to reinstate, with change, a previously approved collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Employment Applications. *Frequency of Use:* On occasion. *Type of Affected Public:* Individuals. *Small Businesses or Organizations Affected:* No. *Federal Budget Functional Category Code:* 999. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 31,500. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 31,500. *Estimated Average Burden Hours per Response:* 1. *Need For and Use of Information:* Applications for employment are needed to collect information on qualifications, suitability for employment, and eligibility for veterans' preference. The information is used to make comparative appraisals and to assist in selections. The affected public consists of individuals who voluntarily apply for TVA employment. Steve A. Anderson, Manager, Business Services, Interim General Manager, Architecture, Planning & Compliance, Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-16411 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Pub. L. 104-13; Proposed Collection, Comment Request AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801;
(423)751-6832. (SC: 000YRFB) Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than October 22, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Type of Request:* Regular submission; proposal to extend without revision a currently approved collection of information (OMB control number 3316-0016). *Title of Information Collection:* Farmer Questionnaire—Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants. *Frequency of Use:* On occasion. *Type of Affected Public:* Individuals or households, and farms. *Small Businesses or Organizations Affected:* No. *Federal Budget Functional Category Code:* 271. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 300. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 150. *Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response:* .5. *Need For and Use of Information:* This survey is used to locate, for monitoring purposes, rural residents, home gardens, and milk animals within a five mile radius of a nuclear power plant. The monitoring program is a mandatory requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission set out in the technical specifications when the plants were licensed. Steve A. Anderson, Manager, Business Services, Interim General Manager, Architecture, Planning & Compliance, Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-16412 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the statutory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Central Montana Rail, Inc. [Docket Number FRA-2001-10948] Central Montana Rail, Inc.
(CMR)has petitioned for an extension of its temporary waiver of compliance from the requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. 21103(a), the Federal hours of service law (HSL), for train employees. This provision states that the railroad may neither require nor allow train employees to begin or remain on duty in excess of 12 hours in a 24-hour period without receiving the appropriate 8- or 10-hour statutory off-duty period. However, the HSL contains a provision (49 U.S.C. 21102(b)) that permits a railroad to seek an exemption from the 12-hour limitation if it employs no more than 15 employees subject to the statute. CMR states that it is the railroad's intent to use such a waiver only in unusual circumstances dictated by geographic remoteness, weather, or traffic peaks, and the waiver is not to be used on a daily basis. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2001-10948) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. 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* . 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 14, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-16404 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Informational Filing In accordance with section 236.913 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)has received an informational filing from the Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)to permit field testing of the railroad's processor-based train control systems. The informational filing is described below, including the requisite docket number where the informational filing and any related information may be found. The document is also available for public inspection; however, FRA is not accepting public comments. Union Pacific Railroad [Docket Number FRA-2007-27322] UP has submitted an informational filing to FRA to permit field testing of the railroad's processor-based train control systems identified as Communications Based Train Control
(CBTC)and Vital-Train Management System (V-TMS). The informational filing addresses the requirements under 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1). Specifically, the informational filing contains a description of the CBTC/V-TMS product and an operational concepts document, pursuant to 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1). The CBTC is a locomotive-centric, non-vital system designed to be overlaid on existing methods of operation and intended to provide an improved level of safety through enforcement of authority limits, permanent speed restrictions, and temporary speed restrictions. The V-TMS is a locomotive-centric, vital train control system designed to be overlaid on existing methods of operation and intended to provide a high level of railroad safety through enforcement of authority limits, permanent speed restrictions, and temporary speed restrictions. UP desires to commence CBTC/V-TMS field testing on or about October 1, 2007, or as soon as practicable thereafter, contingent upon FRA's acceptance and approval of the informational filing. Interested parties are invited to review the informational filing and associated documents at the following locations: Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for a simple search on the DOT electronic Docket Management System, using Docket No. 27322. All documents in the public docket that are associated with the informational filing are available on the Web site for inspection and copying. DOT Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-16407 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26283; Notice 2] Britax Child Safety, Inc.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Britax Child Safety, Inc. (Britax) has determined that certain child restraint systems that it produced in 2006 do not comply with paragraph S5.1.1 of 49 CFR 571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems.* Britax has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Britax also has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on December 15, 2006 in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 75609). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received one comment from Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates). To view the petition and all supporting documents, go to: *http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm* and enter Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26283. For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Zachary R. Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone
(202)366-5754, facsimile
(202)366-7002. Affected are a total of approximately 34,355 Marathon Child Restraint Systems (models E9L06, E9W06, and E906) produced by Britax between May 23 and July 28, 2006. Britax recommends that the Marathon be used forward-facing for children weighing between 20 and 65 pounds, and with the tether at all times. FMVSS No. 213 specifies that a child restraint recommended for use above 50 pounds be tested with a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart S dummy. The Subpart S dummy is a Hybrid III 6 year-old dummy with weights added to the spine. Also, paragraph S5(d) specifies that each child restraint system tested with a 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart S dummy need not meet paragraph S5.1.2, *Injury Criteria* and paragraph S5.1.3, *Occupant Excursion* of FMVSS No. 213. In addition, paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires that the child restraint system exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element during dynamic testing. When the noncompliant child restraint systems were tested with the weighted 6 year-old dummy, the top tether hook opened and released from the top tether anchor. Britax has corrected the problem that caused the tether hook to release so that it will not be repeated in future production. Britax believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Britax states that the system has “excellent biomechanical performance * * * even with the opening of the system's top tether hook.” Britax says that the systems “exceed expectation with head excursion well below the limit for products in which this performance is actually measured,” even though the noncompliant systems are not required to meet head excursion limits. Britax also points out that there was a lower HIC and lower chest acceleration with the top tether hook open than when not open, and “[t]hese results demonstrate that the opening of the top tether dissipates some of the occupant energy and thereby reduc[es] overall biomechanical injury measures.” Britax concludes that the open top tether hook is inconsequential to the system working. Britax states, “The biomechanical results and performance of the other structural components of the Marathon prove that the *system* [emphasis in original] does what is it intended to do—that is, save children's lives.” Advocates commented by expressing their concern about the potential negative impacts on public confidence that failures of this type in actual use and an agency decision granting inconsequential noncompliance could have on the rate of tether use. Advocates also asserted that publicity that may accompany the failure of an upper tether could have a negative impact on consumer confidence and complicate the agency's efforts to educate the public regarding the use of tethers. NHTSA Decision In reaching our decision, NHTSA has carefully reviewed the subject petition, the Advocates' comments and a similar petition (which Britax attempts to distinguish from its petition) that was submitted to NHTSA in 2002 by another child restraint systems manufacturer, Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel). (To view the Dorel petition and all supporting documents, go to: NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13014.) As part of its reasoning, Britax argued that because the Britax Marathon system displayed “excellent biomechanical performance * * * even with the opening of the system's top tether hook” during the NHTSA testing that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not agree with this line of reasoning. As Britax acknowledges, even though the Britax Marathon system met other dynamic test requirements, it did not meet paragraph S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 because the system's top tether hook opened and released from the top tether anchorage. The agency has consistently viewed tether strap separation as a load bearing structural failure. A tether strap structural failure is similar to vehicle LATCH anchorage failure; a failure of either one will not provide full occupant protection for children. In requiring upper tethers and anchors, NHTSA noted that, “the tether is especially effective at reducing head excursion and the potential for head impacts.” 64 FR 10786. By definition, the child restraint anchorage system consists of both the lower anchorages and the tether. 49 CFR 571.225 S3. This line of reasoning is consistent with NHTSA's decision to deny the previously referenced Dorel petition. Here, because the seat was recommended for weights greater than 50 pounds, the injury criteria applicable in other situations did not apply. This makes structural integrity all the more important. As Britax itself notes (petition at page 2), where the injury criteria do not apply, “there is a reliance on the structural integrity of the restraint to ensure safety of the child occupant * * *” The agency has taken enforcement action for a similar failure. In 2001, the agency notified Britax of a potential noncompliance due to the detachment of a tether strap during dynamic testing of one of its child restraint models. Britax initiated a recall campaign to provide owners of the affected model with repair kits. In its current petition, Britax stated it did not believe that the failure that resulted in the 2001 recall should be compared to the current failure. Britax's argument for this is that the 2001 failure had the potential for increased forward movement of the head and therefore potential for exceeding head excursion limits whereas the current Marathon “exceeds its biomechanical requirements and expectations.” We disagree with this reasoning and believe that the Marathon, while not required to meet a head excursion requirement when tested with the weighted 6 year-old dummy, also has the potential for increased forward movement of the head in excess of the required limit in the event of a top tether failure. We note that, as the Britax explanation makes clear, the head excursion limit (720 mm) was exceeded in one out of the three tests the company performed. In that test, the tether hook opened. In the other two tests performed by Britax, the tether hook did not open and the head excursions were substantially less. Furthermore, lower biomechanical responses would naturally occur as a result of increased excursion due to a top tether failure. Finally, NHTSA agrees with Advocates that granting this petition would send a mixed message to the public regarding the use of tethers and would be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote greater use of LATCH and tether. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Britax's petition is hereby denied, and the petitioner must notify according to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedy according to 49 U.S.C. 30120. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: August 15, 2007. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-16408 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permit. SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier **Federal Register** publications, they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of special permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the suffix “M” denote a modification request. These applications have been separated from the new application for special permits to facilitate processing. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2007. Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The notice of receipt of applications for modification of special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2007. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals. Modification Special Permits Application number Docket number Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permit thereof 7835-M Richem Company, Inc., Albuquerque, NM 49 CFR 177.848(d) To modify the special permit to authorize additional bulk and non-bulk containers for transporting class 8 liquids. 8554-M Orica USA Inc., Watkins, CO 49 CFR 173.62; 173.240; 173.242; 173.93; 173.114a; 173.154; 176.83; 176.415; 177.848(d) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of certain Division 1.5D explosives in the same vehicle with Division 5.1 oxidizers. 8723-M Dyno Nobel, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT 49 CFR 172.101; 173.62; 173.242; 176.83; 177.848 To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of an additional Division 5.1 hazardous material. 8723-M Austin Powder Company, Cleveland, OH 49 CFR 172.101; 173.62; 173.242; 176.83; 177.848 To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of an additional Division 5.1 hazardous material. 11194-M Carleton Technologies, Inc., Westminster, MD 49 CFR 173.302(a); 173.304(a); 175.3 To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of additional Division 2.2 gases. 11579-M Senex Explosives, Inc., Cuddy, PA 49 CFR 177.848(e)(2); 177.848(g)(3) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation of additional Class 3 materials and the use of several DOT specification and non-DOT specification bulk packagings. 13169-M RSPA-2002-13894 Conocophillips, Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK 49 CFR 172.101(9B) To modify the special permit to allow the transportation in commerce of certain Class 9 materials in UN 31A intermediate bulk containers which exceed quantity limitations when shipped by air. 14393-M PHMSA-2006-25797 Hamilton, Sundstrand, Windsor Locks, CT 49 CFR 173.306(e)(iii), (iv),
(v)and (vi); 173.307(a)(4)(iv) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of new supplemental cooling unit refrigeration machines with alternative safety devices as a component part of an aircraft. 14418-M PHMSA-2006-26182 Department of Defense, Ft. Eustis, VA 49 CFR 172.301; 172.400; 172.504(a) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of an additional Division 4.3 hazardous material. [FR Doc. 07-4073 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 22
Traces to 22 documents
U.S. Code
25 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 63
  • 22 CFR 308
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 100-503
  • Pub. L. 101-508
  • Pub. L. 108-173
  • Pub. L. 110-21
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)
  • 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1)
  • 49 CFR 571.213
  • 49 CFR 573
  • 49 CFR 572
  • 49 CFR 571.225
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 49 CFR 107
  • 49 CFR 1.53(b)
  • 49 CFR 177.848(d)
  • 49 CFR 173.62
  • 49 CFR 172.101
  • 49 CFR 173.302(a)
  • 49 CFR 177.848(e)(2)
  • 49 CFR 172.101(9B)
  • 49 CFR 173.306(e)(iii)
  • 49 CFR 172.301
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of availability
C.F.R.§ 63.2
C.F.R.§ 63.112
C.F.R.§ 63.111
C.F.R.§ 63.21
C.F.R.§ 63.31
C.F.R.§ 63.41
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 2501
U.S.C.§ 78s
Cite10 CFR 63
Cite22 CFR 308
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cites 47 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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