Notices. Amendment 1

10,012 words·~46 min read·/register/2007/09/14/07-4550·

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56377; File No. SR-Amex-2007-84] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 950-ANTE(d) September 10, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 7, 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 prepared substantially by the Exchange.

On September 7, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. 3 The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A), 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical, non-substantive corrections to the filing. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 5 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 Commentary .02 to Rule 950-ANTE(d) to permit the member firm guarantee to be set at either 20% or 40% and to permit the guarantee to apply to certain specified solicited orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com,* the Amex's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit the Facilitation Procedures Committee (“Committee”), appointed by the Board, on a class-by-class basis, to apply the member firm guarantee currently available for facilitation crosses, to solicited orders which improve the quoted market. The Exchange proposes either a 20% or a 40% guarantee, to be determined by the Committee.

The current member firm guarantee provides that a member firm is entitled to a participation guarantee of 40% if the order is traded at a price that matches or improves the market. The Amex submits that the proposal is similar to amendments adopted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”). 6 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53543 (March 23, 2006), 71 FR 15780 (March 29, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-21). A solicited order is an order solicited by a member firm (floor broker) to trade with another order.

The Amex submits that orders which improve the quoted market that are solicited in order to facilitate a public customer order should receive a similar guaranteed participation as a member firm facilitating its customer's order if so determined by the Facilitation Procedures Committee. Pursuant to Commentary .02(a)-(c) to Rule 950-ANTE(d), a floor broker holding an order for its public customer and a facilitation order is permitted to cross the orders if

(i)floor broker discloses on its order ticket for the public customer order which is subject to facilitation, all the terms of such order, including, if applicable, any contingency involving other options, underlying securities, or related securities;

(ii)the floor broker requests bids and offers for the option series subject to facilitation, then discloses the public customer order and any contingency respecting such order which is subject to facilitation and identifies the order as being subject to facilitation; and

(iii)after providing an opportunity for such bids and offers to be made, the floor broker on behalf of the public customer whose order is subject to facilitation, either bids at or above the highest bid or at or below the lowest offer in the market. After all other market participants are given an opportunity to accept the bid or offer made on behalf of the public customer whose order is subject to facilitation, the floor broker may cross all or any remaining part of such order and the facilitation order at such customer's bid or offer by announcing in public outcry that he is crossing such orders, stating the quantity and price(s). Notwithstanding the provisions provided for in Commentary .02(a)-(c) of 950-ANTE(d), in cases where a member firm is seeking to facilitate its own public customer's order, Commentary .02(d)(1) to Rule 950-ANTE(d) currently provides that member firms are entitled to participate in the firm's proprietary account as the contra-side of that order to the extent of 40% of the remaining contracts, after public customer orders on the specialist's book or customer orders represented by a floor broker in the crowd have been filled, provided the order trades at a price that matches or improves the market. This member firm guarantee provides, under certain conditions, the ability to cross 40% of the customer order on behalf of a member organization before the specialist and/or registered options traders in the crowd can participate in the transaction. The provision generally applies to orders of 400 contracts or more. However, the Exchange is currently permitted to establish smaller eligible order sizes, on a class-by-class basis, provided that size is not for fewer than 50 contracts. The proposed amendments to Commentary .02(d) to Rule 950-ANTE would allow the Committee to

(i)determine if solicited orders which improve the quoted market may be crossed in the same manner as facilitation cross transactions, including that the floor broker complies with the disclosure and quote request process described above and

(ii)to establish smaller eligible order sizes ( *i.e.* , less than 400 contracts but not less than 50 contracts), a determination that is currently made by the Exchange. Current Commentary .02(d)(1) to Rule 950-ANTE(d) permits a member seeking to facilitate its own public customer's option order to participate as the contra-side of that order to the extent of 40% of the remaining contracts provided certain criteria are satisfied. In February 2005, the Exchange received Commission approval to implement a member firm guarantee of 40% for facilitation crosses for orders traded at the market or better than the market. 7 The proposed changes would provide the Exchange with discretion by permitting participation to the extent of either 20% or 40% as determined on a class-by-class basis by the Committee. Additionally, the proposal would eliminate references to equity option orders and index options orders so that all options orders would be subject to the proposed changes. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51275 (February 28, 2005), 70 FR 10709 (March 4, 2005). The Exchange further proposes amendments to Commentary .02(d)(3) and

(4)to Rule 950-ANTE(d) to include both facilitation and solicited orders. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would also allow the Committee, under authority properly delegated by the Amex, to exempt a particular option class from the application of Commentary .02 to Rule 950-ANTE(d). The Exchange also notes that Commentary .04 to Rule 950-ANTE(d) still applies to solicited orders. Notwithstanding Commentary .04 to Rule 950-ANTE(d), however, the participation guarantees of 20% or 40% set forth in amended Commentary .02(d)(1) will apply in those cases where a member firm is seeking to cross a public customer order with a solicited order. Section 11(a)(1) of the Act 8 makes it unlawful for a member of an exchange to effect a transaction for its own account on that exchange unless a specific exception applies. The exceptions are set forth in Section 11(a)(1) 9 and in various rules adopted by the Commission subsequent to the enactment of Section 11(a). In connection with the use of affiliated or “house” floor brokers by Amex members, Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act 10 provides an exemption from the prohibitions of Section 11(a) for transactions effected for a member's own account (“G Orders”), if the member meets a business mix test that requires it to be primarily engaged in the business of underwriting and distributing securities, selling securities to customers and/or acting as a broker, and provided more than 50% of its gross revenues is derived from such businesses and related activities. 11 However, all G Orders must yield priority to any bid or offer at the same price for the account of a person who is not or is not associated with a member. Therefore, if a G Order is entered by a floor broker as part of a solicited transaction, the G Order will not be permitted an execution ahead of any non-member order on the book. 12 8 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1). 9 *Id.* 10 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G). 11 Rule 11a1-1(T)(b) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)(b), provides additional guidance to members seeking to meet the business mix test requirements of Section 11(a)(1)(G)(i), 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G)(i). 12 Because the ANTE System is not programmed to recognize “G” orders and provide for the order to yield to all non-member accounts, affiliated floor brokers are prohibited from sending “G” orders in options into the ANTE System. This prohibition is necessary in order to prevent a violation of Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), by a member using an affiliated broker to represent a “G” order. The Committee will meet quarterly and will be chaired by the Chairman of the Board (“Chairman”) or his or her designee who will vote to break ties. Each quarter the composition of the Committee will be determined by the Chairman or his or her designee who will choose two

(2)specialist representatives, two

(2)ROT representatives and two

(2)floor broker representatives from a pool annually chosen by the Board to serve on the Committee. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f. 14 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 Because the foregoing rule does not:

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

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days 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, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 16 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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. Amex has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act. 17 Because the proposal would establish rules that are substantially similar to rules that have been adopted by another exchange, 18 the Commission believes that the proposal does not raise new regulatory issues, and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 19 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(F)(6)(iii). 18 *See supra* note 6. 19 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or* • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-84 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-84. 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 am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-84 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18131 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56379; File No. SR-ISE-2007-79] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes September 10, 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 31, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the ISE. The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the ISE under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to clarify and amend its Trading Application Software Fees with respect to FIX and API sessions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the ISE's Web site ( *http://www.ise.com* ), at the principal office of the ISE, 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 ISE 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 ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees with respect to Electronic Access Member (“EAM”) Trading Application Software Fees. A member can connect via an Application Programming Interface (“API”) session or a Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) session. The ISE uses an open API which members program to in order to develop applications that send trading commands and/or queries to and receive broadcasts and/or transactions from the trading system. The API processes quotes, receives orders from EAMs, tracks activity in the underlying markets, when applicable, executes trades in the matching engine, and broadcasts trade details to the participating members. The ISE pays a licensing fee for the use of the options API, whereas ISE owns the proprietary rights to the equity API. Accordingly, fees are higher for options API sessions than they are for equity API sessions. FIX is an industry-wide messaging standard protocol. While the FIX specification is open and free, implementing FIX requires planning, software, and network services that ISE provides. On December 5, 2006, the Exchange filed to adopt fees related to the trading of equity securities on the ISE Stock Exchange, LLC, a facility of ISE. In ISE-2006-76, the Exchange proposed to charge a Session/API 5 fee of $250 per month to connect to the ISE Stock Exchange, with a waiver until June 30, 2007 for second and subsequent connections. 6 The Exchange allowed this waiver to expire on June 30, 2007, at which time the fee to connect to the ISE Stock Exchange, on a monthly basis, became $250 per session, *i.e.* , for each connection to the ISE Stock Exchange, regardless of whether the Equity EAM is connected via FIX or API. Subsequent to the fee increase, the Exchange analyzed the impact of the fee increase on Equity EAMs and determined that the disparity between the increase in fees and the additional work required to assist the Equity EAMs in maintaining additional lines to the Exchange was not accurately correlated. Accordingly, the Exchange has decided to reduce the fee for third and subsequent connections to the ISE Stock Exchange. 7 The Exchange proposes to assess the following fees for Equity EAMs: $250 each for the first and second connection and $50 for each additional connection, regardless of whether the Equity EAM is connected via FIX or API. 8 5 Historically, the Schedule of Fees referred to “FIX” as “Session.” However, in this filing the Exchange is proposing to clarify this by defining session fees as either FIX or API. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54897 (December 8, 2006), 71 FR 75593 (December 15, 2006) (SR-ISE-2007-76) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change relating to ISE Stock Exchange fees). 7 Telephone conference between Laura Clare, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Jan Woo, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on September 7, 2007 (“Telephone conference on September 7, 2007”) (correcting the filing to state that the Exchange is proposing to reduce the fee increase for the third and subsequent connections (whether they are API or FIX) to the ISE Stock Exchange for Equity EAMs). 8 Telephone conference on September 7, 2007 (clarifying that the $250 charge will be assessed for each of the first two connections made by Equity EAMs that connect via the API or FIX). Historically, the Exchange charged options members the following Session/API fee to connect to the Exchange: $250 per month for the first five CLICK terminals and $100 per month for six or more terminals. Further, under a pilot program previously adopted by the Exchange, all Session/API fees associated with a second and any subsequent CLICK terminals were waived. As a result, members were only charged a $250 per month Session/API fee to connect to the Exchange. Earlier this year, once all existing CLICK terminals were decommissioned, the Exchange submitted a fee filing that, among other things, proposed to remove all references to CLICK terminals from its fee schedule. 9 In doing so, and after conducting an internal analysis of the impact of fees to members, the Exchange notes that the CLICK Fee Filing actually raised the Session/API fees for members, contrary to what the Exchange intended. Thus, this filing seeks to remedy the mistake the CLICK Fee Filing has caused. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55960 (June 26, 2007), 72 FR 36531 (July 3, 2007) (the “CLICK Fee Filing”). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to reinstate the tiered session fee for EAM Options API, as it was never the intent of the Exchange to eliminate this fee reduction on sixth and additional sessions. 10 For Options EAMs that connect via the API the proposed fee is $250 for each of the first five connections and $100 for each additional connection. 11 With respect to the FIX fees, the Exchange proposes to charge EAMs one fee for FIX sessions, regardless of whether the EAM is an Options EAM or an Equity EAM. As discussed above, the Exchange proposes a $250 fee for the first FIX connection and an additional $250 for the second FIX connection and $50 for each additional connection thereafter. 10 Telephone conference between Laura Clare, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Jan Woo, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on September 10, 2007 (clarifying that the proposed rule change is to reinstate a tiered session fee for EAM Options API including a fee reduction for sixth and additional sessions). 11 Telephone conference on September 7, 2007 (clarifying that the $250 charge will be assessed for each of the first five connections made by Options EAMs that connect via the API). Further, the Exchange proposes to rearrange and add clarifying language to this section of the Schedule of Fees to delineate specifically which fees apply to FIX sessions and which fees apply to API sessions, and which fees apply to Options EAMs and which fees apply to Equity EAMs. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(4) of the Act 12 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 14 thereunder because it changes a fee imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 14 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2007-79 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-79. 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 ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-79 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-18132 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11021 and #11022; New York Disaster Number NY-00053] AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1724-DR), dated 08/31/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornado. *Incident Period:* 08/08/2007. *Effective Date:* 09/07/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/30/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/02/2008. 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: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New York, dated 08/31/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Kings. All other counties contiguous to the above named primary county have previously been declared. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator, for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-18172 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10927 and #10928] Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00012 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 6. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of OKLAHOMA (FEMA-1712-DR), dated 07/07/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 06/10/2007 through 07/25/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 09/06/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/05/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2008. 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: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of OKLAHOMA, dated 07/07/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Atoka, Caddo, Coal, Creek, Delaware, Garfield, Garvin, Kay, Kingfisher, Lincoln, Marshall, Mayes, Muskogee, Noble, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pushmataha, Washita, Woods *Contiguous Counties:* Oklahoma: Adair, Alfalfa, Cherokee, Grant, Harper, Haskell, Latimer, Le Flore, Love, Mccurtain, Mcintosh, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, Woodward Arkansas: Benton Kansas: Barber, Comanche, Cowley, Sumner All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-18137 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Declaration #10919 and #10920; Texas Disaster Number TX-00254 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 9. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1709-DR), dated 06/29/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/16/2007 through 08/03/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 09/06/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/29/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/31/2008. 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: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 06/29/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Milam, Montague, Stephens, Wise. Contiguous Counties: Texas: Burleson, Robertson. Oklahoma: Jefferson. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-18123 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Declaration #11025; Vermont Disaster #VT-00006 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan

(EIDL)declaration for the State of Vermont, dated 09/06/2007. *Incident:* Colby Block Fire. *Incident Period:* 05/07/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 09/06/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/06/2008. 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 EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 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:* Orange. *Contiguous Counties:* Vermont: Addison, Caledonia, Washington, Windsor. New Hampshire: Grafton. The Interest Rate is: 4.000. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 110250. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Vermont; New Hampshire. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-18126 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Declaration #11010 and #11011; Wisconsin Disaster Number WI-00010 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1719-DR), dated 08/26/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 08/18/2007 through 08/31/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 09/06/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/25/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 05/26/2008. 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: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin, dated 08/26/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Columbia, Dane, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Kenosha, Racine, Rock. *Contiguous Counties:* Wisconsin: Dodge, Green Lake, Lafayette, Marquette, Milwaukee, Walworth, Waukesha. Illinois: Boone, Jo Daviess, Lake, McHenry, Stephenson, Winnebago. Iowa: Dubuque. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-18133 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Office of the National Ombudsman; Regulatory Fairness Boards Annual Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of the National Ombudsman is announcing the annual board meeting of the ten Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards on Thursday and Friday, September 13-14, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. As mandated by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Section 222 the purpose of this meeting is for the Regulatory Fairness Boards to advise the National Ombudsman on matters of concern to small businesses relating to enforcement activities of agencies and to report on substantiated instances of excessive enforcement against small business concerns, including any findings or recommendations of the Board as to agency enforcement practice or policy. The meeting will be at the SBA Headquarters, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, in the Eisenhower Conference Room, 2nd Floor. For further information, please direct inquiries to José Méndez, Event Coordinator, Office of the National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street, Suite 7125, Washington, DC 20416, phone

(202)205-6178, fax

(202)401-2707, e-mail *Jose.mendez@sba.gov* . For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-18124 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration

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

(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages included in this notice are for extensions of and revisions to OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400, E-mail address: *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by e-mailing the Reports Clearance Officer at *oplm.rco@ssa.gov.* 1. Application for Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs—20 CFR 418.3101—0960-0696. Medicare Part D, codified in 20 CFR 418, provides voluntary prescription drug coverage of premium, deductible, and co-payment costs for certain low-income individuals. As per 20 CFR 418.3101, beneficiaries who meet eligibility criteria may receive help with these Medicare Part D costs. The Social Security Administration, which helps to administer the subsidy program, uses form SSA-1020 (the Application for Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs) and its online equivalent, the i1020, to collect information that will be used to make Medicare Part D subsidy determinations. The respondents are eligible beneficiaries who want to apply for help with Medicare Part D costs. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) SSA-1020 (paper application form) 2,545,716 1 35 1,485,001 i1020 (online equivalent) 380,394 1 45 285,296 Totals 2,926,110 1,770,297 2. Appeal of Determination for Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs—0960-0695. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173; MMA) established a new Medicare Part D program for voluntary prescription drug coverage for premium, deductible and cost-sharing subsidies for certain low-income individuals. The MMA stipulates that subsidies must be available for individuals who are eligible for the program and who meet eligibility criteria for help with premium, deductible, and/or co-payment costs. Form SSA-1021, the Appeal of Determination for Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs, was developed to obtain information from individuals who appeal SSA's decisions regarding eligibility or continuing eligibility for a Medicare Part D subsidy. The respondents are applicants who are appealing SSA's eligibility or continuing eligibility decisions. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 75,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 12,500 hours. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by emailing *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* 1. *Correction Notice:* This 30-day **Federal Register** Notice published on August 10, 2007, at 72 FR 45079. At the time, we inadvertently omitted two notices which are part of this collection. The revised burden chart below now contains these notices. Medicare Quality Review Forms—20 CFR 418(b)(5)—0960-0707. The Social Security Administration

(SSA)uses the Medicare Quality Review Forms collection to verify the information reported on Medicare Part D Subsidy applications (OMB No. 0960-0696) for a selected number of applicants. SSA is planning to expand the scope of this collection by conducting Quality Reviews with some current recipients of Medicare Part D subsidies who have recently undergone the redetermination process (OMB No. 0960-0723). This ICR is for two new appointment letters (forms SSA-9313 and SSA-9314) that such beneficiaries will complete to schedule an appointment for their Quality Review. The respondents are current recipients of Medicare Part D subsidies who have recently undergone a redetermination and who were selected for a Quality Review. *Type of Request:* Revision to an existing OMB-approved information collection. Form No. and name Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) SSA-9301 (Medicare Subsidy Quality Review Case Analysis Questionnaire) 10,000 1 35 5,833 SSA-9302 (Notice of Quality Review Acknowledgement Form for those with Phones) 10,000 1 15 2,500 SSA-9303 (Notice of Quality Review Acknowledgement Form for those without Phones) 1,000 1 15 250 SSA-9304 (Checklist of Required Information; burden accounted for with forms SSA-9302, SSA-9303) SSA-9308 (Request for Information) 20,000 1 15 5,000 SSA-9310 (Request for Documents) 10,000 1 5 833 SSA-9309 (Life Insurance Verification Form) 8,000 1 15 2,000 SSA-9311 (Notice of Appointment—Denial—Reviewer Will Call) 450 1 15 113 SSA-9312 (Notice of Appointment—Denial—Please Call Reviewer) 50 1 15 13 SSA-8510 (Authorization to the Social Security Administration to Obtain Personal Information) 10,000 1 5 833 SSA-9313 (Notice of Appointment Quality Review Acknowledgement Form)* 4,500 1 15 1,125 SSA-9314 (Notice of Quality Review Acknowledgement Form (unknown phone numbers)* 500 1 15 125 Total 18,625 * These are the two new forms being cleared in the current ICR for this collection. 2. *Correction Notice:* This 30-day notice published on August 7, 2007, at 72 FR 44211. It has since been decided to allow other types of respondents (other third-parties besides representatives) to use this form. Revised burden information is provided below. Electronic Records Express Third-Party Registration Form—0960-NEW. ERE (Electronic Records Express) is an online system which enables medical providers and various third parties to submit disability claimant information electronically to SSA as part of the disability application process. Third parties who wish to use this system must complete a unique registration process so the Agency can ensure they are authorized to access a claimant's electronic disability folder. This request is for the Third-Party Registration Form. The respondents are third-party representatives of disability applicants or recipients who want to use ERE to electronically access beneficiary folders and submit information to SSA. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 78,344. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 3 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,917 hours. Dated: September 10, 2007. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18104 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5936] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “A New World: England's First View of America” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “A New World: England's First View of America,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the North Carolina Museum of History, Raleigh, North Carolina, beginning on or about October 20, 2007, until on or about January 13, 2008, Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, Connecticut, beginning on or about March 6, 2008, until on or about June 1, 2008; Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia, beginning on or about July 15, 2008, until on or about October 15, 2008 and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: September 4, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-18170 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5935] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Sir Anthony van Dyck: Portrait of an Old Man” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “Sir Anthony van Dyck: Portrait of an Old Man”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Dayton Art Institute, Dayton, OH, from on or about September 21, 2007, until on or about January 27, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: September 10, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-18171 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Bear Creek Dam Leakage Resolution Project, Franklin County, AL AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision. SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. TVA has decided to implement Alternative 2—Modify Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 576 Feet, the preferred alternative identified in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Bear Creek Dam Leakage Resolution Project. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Policy Program Manager, Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401; telephone

(865)632-3582 or e-mail *cpnicholson@tva.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA completed Bear Creek Dam in 1969 at mile 74.6 on Bear Creek in Franklin County, Alabama. The dam and associated reservoir are part of the Bear Creek Project authorized for the purposes of flood control, recreation, and economic development, including water supply. Excessive leakage of water has occurred through the foundation of Bear Creek Dam since its completion and this increases the risk of dam failure. TVA has unsuccessfully attempted repairs on several occasions. The most recent of these repair efforts was in 2004-2005; after TVA refilled the reservoir to its normal summer pool level of 576 feet above sea level, excessive leakage continued. Since then, TVA has operated the reservoir at a reduced summer pool level of 568 feet as a precautionary measure to reduce the leakage and provide a greater margin for flood management. However, following periods of heavy rainfall, the reservoir level can rise, and the risk of dam failure increases. TVA prepared this EIS to evaluate alternatives for a long-term solution to the problem of excessive leakage through Bear Creek Dam. TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS in the **Federal Register** on June 2, 2006. A public scoping meeting was held on June 20, 2006 and attended by about 150 people. Scoping comments were received from two federal agencies, four state agencies, and several individuals. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on June 1, 2007. TVA held a public meeting on the Draft EIS on June 26, 2007 and accepted comments through July 16, 2007. Comments on the Draft EIS were received from three federal agencies, one state agency, three local public water suppliers, and three individuals. The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 2007. Alternatives Considered TVA identified four alternatives in the EIS Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, TVA would not implement a long-term solution to the leakage problem and would attempt to operate the dam at the originally-intended summer pool level of 576 feet. Normal winter pool would remain at 565 feet. Under this alternative, TVA would implement new seasonal minimum flows from the dam as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to improve habitat conditions for endangered species in Bear Creek downstream of the dam. Adoption of Alternative 1 would not remedy the leakage problem, and the dam would be at risk of failure, which would cause downstream flood damage. Although this alternative differs from the current interim operating regime, it better represents the historic baseline conditions. Under Alternative 2, Modify Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 576 Feet, TVA would repair or rebuild the dam in place or immediately downstream and restore the normal summer pool to 576 feet. TVA would also implement the new seasonal minimum flows described above for Alternative 1 and raise the normal winter pool by one foot to 566 feet. The existing roadway across the dam would be returned to service following dam repairs. Three sub-alternatives are considered under this alternative. Alternative 2a is the construction of a roller-compacted concrete structure at the downstream edge of the existing dam. This structure would be keyed into the bedrock, and a cutoff wall would be installed beneath the structure to prevent seepage. Alternative 2b is the placement of additional earth fill on the downstream dam face and the installation of a cutoff wall into bedrock on the downstream side of the dam. Alternative 2c is the installation of a cutoff wall into bedrock on the upstream dam face. Under Alternative 3, Lower Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 565 Feet, the existing dam would be partially removed and stabilized. A grout curtain or cutoff wall would be installed within the dam and into the underlying bedrock to prevent seepage under the dam. The existing roadway across the dam would be rebuilt. The reservoir pool level would be maintained at approximately 565 feet throughout the year. Under Alternative 4, Remove Dam and Restore Former Creek Channel, TVA would remove Bear Creek Dam and the reservoir would be eliminated. The former creek channel would be dredged of excess sediment to facilitate water flow. A bridge would be built to replace the existing roadway over the dam. Comments on the Final EIS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)commented on the final EIS. Their comments focused on potential effects to wetlands and sought clarification of responses to previous EPA comments on the draft EIS. Due to favorable hydrologic conditions, approximately 77 acres of scrub-shrub, emergent, and aquatic bed wetlands have developed at various locations around the reservoir fringe at the interim summer pool elevation of 568 feet. None of these wetlands is forested. The forested wetlands on Bear Creek Reservoir are confined to the heads of coves where tributary streams enter the reservoir. The hydrology of these areas depends on the tributary streams, and the forested wetlands are generally unaffected by fluctuation in the reservoir level. Forested/scrub-shrub wetlands also occur on flats associated with Island Branch and further upstream. Based on the size of trees present, these wetlands have persisted in this location for over 20 years and would not be inundated when the reservoir is refilled. No forested wetlands would be affected adversely under Alternatives 1 and 2. Forested wetlands have not developed in the drawdown zone between elevation 576 feet (normal summer pool) and 565 (normal winter pool) because tree growth is inhibited by extended inundation during the growing season. Because they perform only minor wetland functions due to their fringe nature and because traditionally accepted hydric soil characteristics are not present, TVA does not consider these wetlands to be jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, no compensatory mitigation is required to offset their loss. Bear Creek Reservoir is narrow with fairly steep, rocky banks and few areas of overbank. Fringe wetlands are likely to become reestablished along parts of the normal (576 foot) summer shoreline, particularly in bottomland areas associated with tributaries, if the reservoir were refilled under Alternative 1 or 2. Shoreline steepness and the presence of adequate soil substrate are the primary factors affecting wetland development at the current 568-foot summer pool level and at the 576-foot normal summer pool elevation under Alternatives 1 and 2. Competition from exotic plants or animal life does not appear to present any barrier to wetland establishment. Much of the Bear Creek Reservoir shoreline has eroded since the reservoir was filled in 1969, and rock outcrops and bluffs are common along the shoreline. No critically eroding shoreline has been identified. At the 576-foot elevation, shoreline vegetation present prior to the 2005 emergency drawdown has not decreased. Refilling the reservoir under Alternatives 1 and 2 is not expected to cause additional erosion. Thus, establishment of shoreline buffers to prevent erosion is neither feasible nor necessary. Returning the reservoir to its original full summer pool is expected to result in water quality conditions virtually identical to the pre-2005 conditions. Most of the shoreline surrounding Bear Creek Reservoir is undeveloped and forested. Runoff from upland areas enters the reservoir primarily via tributary streams. The degree of upland runoff filtered by wetlands is dependent on those wetlands present in coves and associated with streams. These areas have not been affected dramatically by changes in reservoir levels. Historically, low levels of dissolved oxygen have occurred in the deeper portions of the reservoir. Currently there are no plans to improve dissolved oxygen. However, TVA will continue to monitor water quality on Bear Creek Reservoir and would take remedial measures as necessary. Decision TVA has decided to implement Alternative 2, Modify Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 576 Feet. Under this alternative, the original project objectives of flood control, recreation, economic development, and water supply would be met. The new seasonal minimum flows would improve conditions for endangered species downstream of the dam, and the one-foot increase in the winter pool level would improve operating conditions for the public water supply intake and treatment plant on the reservoir. Three alternative methods of repairing the dam are identified in the EIS. TVA has selected Alternative 2a, the construction of a roller-compacted concrete structure at the downstream edge of the existing dam. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Alternative 2—Modify Dam and Maintain Summer Pool Level of 576 Feet is the environmentally preferred alternative. Implementation of this alternative would afford a stable water supply source for the Franklin County Water Service Authority and would restore water-based recreational opportunities on Bear Creek Reservoir. Repair of the dam under this alternative would provide increased flood protection to downstream areas compared to the other alternatives. Operation of the dam under Alternative 2 to provide target minimum flows would provide improved water quality for three federally listed mussel species known to occur downstream of Bear Creek Dam. The potential environmental consequences of implementing any of the three Alternative 2 repair methods are similar. However, Alternative 2a—Roller-Compacted Concrete Structure is preferable to the other two methods in that it would most likely provide the best long-term solution to the leakage problems. It would provide protection against the probable maximum flood. The need for future construction disturbance would be reduced under Alternative 2a. Mitigation Standard construction best management practices would be followed in all aspects of the proposed repairs and construction to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. TVA would ensure that all necessary permits are obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies and that permit requirements are met. TVA would ensure that all site operations adhere to the requirements in each permit and would employ all necessary actions to minimize environmental impacts. The following non-routine measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for adverse environmental effects: • Construction buffers would be delineated around any caves within one-fourth mile of a construction area. The buffer for caves would be 200 feet. Within this buffer, vegetation would not be cleared, and vehicles or equipment would be restricted to existing roads. • TVA would increase patrols and monitoring of cultural resources within the reservoir drawdown area until conditions are stabilized or protected. • Archaeological surveys as required by the Memorandum of Agreement between TVA and the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer will be conducted, and mitigation will be performed on any sites or resources determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. Dated: September 10, 2007. Janet C. Herrin, Senior Vice President, River Operations. [FR Doc. E7-18146 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Corridors of the Future Program AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice; announcement of the Corridors of the Future under the Corridors of the Future Program. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT)announces the selection of the Corridors of the Future

(CFP)Phase 2 applications to be designated as the Corridors of the Future. The DOT has identified nationally significant corridors and the corresponding CFP applications that have the potential to alleviate congestion and provide national and regional long-term transportation benefits that will increase freight reliability and enhance the quality of life for U.S. citizens within the corridors and across the Nation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Alla C. Shaw, Attorney-Advisor,

(202)366-1042 ( *alla.shaw@dot.gov* ), Federal Highway Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, E84-463, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access:* An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara* . *Background:* On September 5, 2006, the DOT published a notice in the **Federal Register** seeking applications from States, or private sector entities, interested in working together to build and manage corridors in a way that alleviates congestion on our highways, rail, or waterways (71 FR 52364). The notice outlined a two-phase submission and selection process and explained that the DOT would select up to 5 corridors in need of investment. However, the compelling nature of the Phase 2 applications justified DOT's selection of the 6 corridors outlined below. For Phase 1, interested parties were asked to submit proposals containing general information about the proposed corridor projects. The DOT received 38 Phase 1 proposals. The DOT established a team comprised of representatives from DOT's surface transportation administrations with expertise in the areas of finance, environment and planning, infrastructure, and operations to review the proposals (CFP Team). The proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the information requested for Phase 1. In a **Federal Register** Notice published on February 7, the DOT invited 14 Phase 1 applicants, with proposals for projects located on 8 major transportation corridors, to participate in Phase 2. (72 FR 5787) At the end of Phase 2, the DOT received 11 applications for projects located on the 8 corridors identified during Phase 1. The CFP Team evaluated the applications based on each applicant's responsiveness to the information requested for Phase 2 in the September 5, 2006 **Federal Register** notice. For Phase 2, applicants were asked to submit detailed information about the proposed corridor including how the proposed corridor would reduce current national and regional areas of congestion or address future congestion, increase mobility of people and freight, support national and international commerce by reducing congestion and providing reliable travel times, and information about innovative project delivery and financing features proposed for the project. Based on the recommendations of the CFP Team, the DOT identified the following corridors and corresponding Phase 2 applications, to designate as the Corridors of the Future. 1. Interstate 95 A. Interstate 95 (I-95)—Florida to the District of Columbia—Submitted by the North Carolina DOT in partnership with the Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia DOTs. B. I-95—Florida to the Canadian Border—Submitted by the I-95 Corridor Coalition. 2. Interstate 70 Dedicated Truck Lanes—Submitted by the Indiana DOT in partnership with the Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio DOTs. 3. Interstate 15—A Corridor without Borders—Submitted by the Nevada DOT on behalf of the Western States Coalition (Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah DOTs). 4. Interstate 5—A Roadmap for Mobility—Submitted by the Washington DOT in partnership with the California and Oregon DOTs. 5. Interstate 10—Submitted by the I-10 National Freight Corridor Coalition. 6. Interstate 69 Corridor—Submitted by Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on behalf of the I-69 Steering Committee. The DOT encourages State departments of transportation and other project sponsors to continue to advance those ideas contained in the applications that were not selected. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 101. Issued on: September 5, 2007. Thomas J. Barrett, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-4550 Filed 9-11-07; 11:07 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code