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 · 2007-10-23 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice of a new system of records

21,196 words·~96 min read·/register/2007/10/23/07-5214

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 Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from September 27, 2007, to October 10, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57352). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* ; or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin *Date of amendment request:* September 24, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs)to add a reference to Dominion Topical Report DOM-NAF-5, “Application of Dominion Nuclear Core Design and Safety Analysis Methods to the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS),” to the list of approved analytical methods. The proposed changes would permit the application of the Dominion nuclear core design and safety analysis methods, including the methodology to perform core thermal-hydraulic analysis to predict critical heat flux and departure from nucleate boiling ratio for the Westinghouse 422 V+ fuel design. The proposed amendment would also:
(1)Accommodate the use of the methodologies proposed in DOM-NAF-5,
(2)delete one approved analytical method that will no longer be used, and
(3)delete date and revision numbers from the current TS list of approved analytical methods, consistent with TS Task Force
(TSTF)Change Traveler TSTF-363-A, Revision 0, “Revise Topical Report References in ITS [improved TSs] 5.6.5, COLR [Core Operating Limits Report],” dated August 4, 2003. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The analysis methods of DOM-NAF-5 do not make any contribution to the potential accident initiators and thus do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The use of the approved Dominion analysis methodologies will not increase the probability of an accident because plant systems, structures, and components
(SSC)will not be affected or operated in a different manner, and system interfaces will not change. Since the applicable safety analysis and nuclear core design acceptance criteria will be satisfied when the Dominion analysis methods are applied to KPS, the use of the approved Dominion analysis methods does not increase the potential consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The use of the approved Dominion methods will not result in a significant impact on normal operating plant releases, and will not increase the predicted radiological consequences of postulated accidents described in the USAR [updated safety analysis report]. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The use of Dominion analysis methods and the Dominion statistical design limit
(SDL)for fuel departure from nucleate boiling ratio
(DNBR)and fuel critical heat flux
(CHF)does not impact any of the applicable core design criteria. All pertinent licensing basis limits and acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Demonstrated adherence to these limits and acceptance criteria precludes new challenges to SSCs that might introduce a new type of accident. All design and performance criteria will continue to be met and no new single failure mechanisms will be created. The use of the Dominion methods does not involve any alteration to plant equipment or procedures that might introduce any new or unique operational modes or accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Nuclear core design and safety analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be satisfied with the application of Dominion methods. Meeting the analysis acceptance criteria and limits ensures that the margin of safety is not significantly reduced. Nuclear core design and safety analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be satisfied with the application of Dominion methods. In particular, use of VIPRE-D with the proposed SDL provides at least a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level that DNBR will not occur (the 95/95 DNBR criterion). The required DNBR margin of safety for KPS, which is the margin between the 95/95 DNBR criterion and clad failure, is therefore not reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Travis L. Tate. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* August 28, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* Revision to the Operating License and Technical Specification
(TS)1.0, “Use and Application, and TS 3.7.17”, “Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,” to Revise Rated Thermal Power from 3458 megawatts thermal
(MWt)to 3612 MWt. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The impacts of the proposed Stretch Power Uprate
(SPU)on plant systems, structures, and components
(SSCs)were reviewed with respect to SSC design capability, and it was determined that following completion of plant changes to support the SPU, no system, structure, or component would exceed its design conditions or limits. Evaluations supporting those conclusions were performed consistent with proposed Technical Specification changes. Consequently, equipment reliability and structural integrity will not be adversely affected. Control system studies demonstrated that plant response to operational transients under SPU conditions will not significantly increase reactor trip frequency, so there will be no significant increase in the frequency of SSC challenges caused by reactor trip. New systems are not needed to implement the SPU, and new interactions among SSCs are not created. The SPU does not create new failure modes for existing SSCs. Modified components do not introduce new failure modes relative to those of the components in their pre-modified condition. Consequently, new initiators of previously analyzed accidents are not created. The fission product barriers—fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the containment building—remain unchanged. The spectrum of previously analyzed postulated accidents and transients was evaluated, and effects on the fuel, the reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the containment were determined. These analyses were performed consistent with the proposed Technical Specification changes. The results demonstrate that existing reactor coolant pressure boundary and containment limits are met and that effects on the fuel are such that dose consequences meet existing criteria at SPU conditions. There is no increase in the probability of an accident concerning the potential insertion of a fuel assembly in an incorrect location in the Spent Fuel Pool Region I/ Region II racks as a result of the specified storage patterns. Luminant Power [Luminant Generation Company LLC] has used administrative controls to move fuel assemblies from location to location since the initial receipt of fuel on site. Fuel assembly placement will continue to be controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and in accordance with the Technical Specification for spent fuel rack storage configuration limitations. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. New systems are not required to implement the SPU, and new interactions among SSCs are not created. The SPU does not create new failure modes for existing SSCs. Modified components do not introduce failures different from those of the components in their pre-modified condition. Consequently, no new or different accident sequences arise from SSC interactions or failures. Training will be provided to address SPU effects, and the plant's simulator will be updated consistent with SPU conditions. Operating procedure changes are minor and do not result in any significant changes in operating philosophy. For these reasons, the SPU does not introduce human performance issues that could create new accidents or different accident sequences. The increase in power level does not create new fission product release paths. The fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the containment building) remain unchanged. The potential for criticality in the spent fuel pool is not a new or different type of accident. The potential criticality accidents have been reanalyzed to demonstrate that the pool remains subcritical. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Structural evaluations performed at SPU conditions demonstrated that calculated loads on affected SSCs remain within their design for all design basis event categories. American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Code fatigue limits continue to be met. Fuel performance evaluations were performed using parameter values appropriate for a reload core operating at SPU conditions. Those evaluations demonstrate that fuel performance acceptance criteria continue to be met. Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA)and non-LOCA safety analyses were performed assuming SPU conditions and consistent with the proposed Technical Specification change. Emergency core cooling system performance was shown to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. The non-LOCA events identified in the Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR)Chapter 15 were shown to meet existing acceptance criteria. The containment building response to mass and energy releases was evaluated assuming SPU conditions. The evaluations showed that temperature and pressure limits were met. No plant changes associated with the SPU reduce the degree of component or system redundancy. Existing Technical Specification operability and surveillance requirements are not reduced by the proposed changes. The proposed fuel storage requirements in Technical Specification 3.7.17 will provide adequate margin to assure that the fuel storage array (Region I and Region II) will always remain subcritical by the 5% margin recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York *Date of amendment request:* August 16, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to control room envelope habitability in TS 3.7.9, “Control Room Emergency Air Treatment System (CREATS),” and TS section 5.5, “Programs and Manuals.” The changes are consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision 3. The availability of this TS improvement was published in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007, as part of the consolidated line item improvement process. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration adopted by the licensee is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Daniel F. Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC 20005. *NRC Branch Chief:* Mark G. Kowal. Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, San Diego County, California *Date of amendment requests:* September 24, 2007. *Description of amendment requests:* Approval of the revision to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3 Technical Specification 5.5.2.15, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.” The request is for a one-time extension from the currently approved 15-year interval since the last Integrated Leak Rate Test
(ILRT)to a 16-year interval since the last ILRT. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing (10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B, Integrated Leak Rate Testing). The current test interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to 16 years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident since research documented in NUREG-1493, “Performance-Based Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements,” September 1995, has found that, generically, very few potential containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests. The NUREG concluded that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per twenty years was found to lead to an imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree of assurance is provided through testing and inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner detectable only by Type A testing. The most recent Type A test at Unit 3 shows leakage to be below acceptance criteria, indicating a leak tight containment. Inspections required by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Code Section Xl (Subsections IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants) are performed in order to identify indications of containment degradation that could affect leak tightness. Type B and C testing required by Technical Specifications will identify any containment opening such as valves that would otherwise be detected by the Type A tests. These factors show that a Type A test extension will not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing (10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B, Integrated Leak Rate Testing). The current test interval of 16 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to 16 years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot create the possibility of a new or different type of accident since there are no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure mode creating an accident or affecting the mitigation of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to the current interval for Type A testing (10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B, Integrated Leak Rate Testing). The current test interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one time basis to 16 years from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The NUREG 1493, “Performance-Based Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements,” September 1995, generic study of the effects of extending containment leakage testing found that a 20 year extension in Type A leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the public. NUREG 1493 found that, generically, the design containment leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent to the individual risk and that the decrease in Type A testing frequency would have a minimal [e]ffect on this risk since 95% of the potential leakage paths are detected by Type C testing. Regular inspections required by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Code Section Xl (Subsections IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants[”]) will further reduce the risk of a containment leakage path going undetected. Therefore[,] the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. *Attorney for licensee:* Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* September 19, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise various Technical Specification
(TS)setting limits and the overtemperature ΔT/overpower ΔT time constants in TS 2.3 and TS 3.7. The methodology for determining the revised setting limits and time constants is in agreement with methods 1 and 2 in ISA-RP67.04, Part II. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed change revises [Limited Safety System Settings] LSSSs and setting limits to ensure that safety limits are not exceeded as a result of normal and expected instrument drift between calibration intervals. The new allowable values (LSSSs and setting limits) were derived to meet the intent of RIS 2006-17, “NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, `Technical Specifications,' Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings During Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels,” dated August 24, 2006. The proposed TS change does not change any of the previously evaluated accidents in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Rather, the proposed change ensures that reactor trip system and engineered safety function actuation system actuations occur as designed and within safety limits. In addition, it increases the probability that a malfunctioning instrument channel will be identified. This change is not considered to represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, since it will decrease the probability of the malfunction of a system, structure or component (SSC), thereby decreasing the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Specifically, the change is conservative in nature since it will increase the likelihood that a malfunctioning instrument channel will be identified prior to that channel exceeding its safety limit. 2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed change revises LSSSs and setting limits to ensure that safety limits are not exceeded as a result of normal and expected instrument drift between calibration intervals. The change is conservative and is intended to ensure the safety analysis is maintained. Specifically, the proposed change is intended to identify a malfunctioning channel prior to its exceeding the safety limit sooner than the current instrument setting methodology. Therefore the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed change revises LSSSs and setting limits to ensure that safety limits are not exceeded as a result of normal and expected instrument drift between calibration intervals. The new allowable values (LSSS and setting limits) were derived to meet the intent of RIS 2006-17, “NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, ‘Technical Specifications,’ Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings During Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels,” dated August 24, 2006. Channel statistical allowance
(CSA)calculations have been performed on channels with an associated safety analysis limit to determine the instrument channel uncertainty. Channel operational test
(COT)errors are associated with those portions of the instrument channel tested to verify channel operability. These COT errors were extracted from the CSA to derive an allowable value for the channel. The allowable value is set at a distance from the actual (nominal) trip setpoint equal to the COT errors (with some minimal additional margin on some channels). The overall result is a reduction in the distance between the allowable value and the nominal trip setpoint. Consequently, for a malfunctioning channel, the allowable value will be exceeded with less drift and, therefore, corrective action will be initiated sooner after implementation of the proposed change. This will increase the likelihood that the safety analysis limit for the channel is not exceeded. The distance between the safety analysis limit and the nominal trip setpoint has not been decreased; therefore, the safety margin has [not been] reduced. The likelihood that a malfunctioning channel is identified prior to exceeding its safety analysis limit has increased. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration. For details, see the individual notice in the **Federal Register** on the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period of the original notice. Duke Power Company LLC, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* March 29, 2007. *Brief description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification section 3.5.2.8, and the associated Bases and authorize changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report concerning modifications to the emergency core cooling system sumps. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register: August 13, 2007, (72 FR 45274). *Expiration date of individual notice:* October 15, 2007. Duke Power Company LLC, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of amendment request:* April 30, 2007. *Brief description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specification Section 5.5.9 concerning modifications to the steam generator tube repair criteria. *Date of publication of individual notice in* Federal Register: August 13, 2007, (72 FR 45272). *Expiration date of individual notice:* October 15, 2007. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the applications for amendment,
(2)the amendment, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, * http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. * If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendment:* May 15, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 6, 2006, December 12, 2006, May 31, 2007, July 25, 2007, and September 4, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment consists of changes to various technical specifications
(TSs)regarding steam generator tube integrity. It is based on Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-449, “Steam Generator Tube Integrity,” and is adapted for the custom TSs used at TMI-1. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 261. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-50:* Amendment revised the license and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40744). The supplements dated October 6, 2006, December 12, 2006, May 31, 2007, July 25, 2007, and September 4, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of application for amendments:* May 2, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* Consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification Task Force-427, Revision 2, the amendments add a new limiting condition for operation
(LCO)3.0.9, to the TS. LCO 3.0.9 will allow the licensee to delay declaring an LCO not met for equipment supported by barriers unable to perform their associated support function for up to 30 days provided that risk is assessed and managed. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 282 and 259. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:* Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33781). The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* September 28, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated September 20, 2007. *Brief Description of amendments:* The amendments changed Technical Specification
(TS)3.8.3, “Diesel Fuel Oil,” to allow the main fuel oil storage tank to be taken out of service for 14 days for inspection, maintenance, and associated repairs on a one-time basis. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2007. *Effective date:* Date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 242 and 270. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:* Amendments changed the TSs. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR 148). The supplement dated September 20, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* January 18, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the expiration time limit of the reactor coolant system Pressure/Temperature limit graphs in Technical Specifications (TS); revises the adjusted reference temperature for the reactor vessel; and revises the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
(LTOP)arming temperature value specified in TSs. It also makes editorial changes in the use of inequality signs in TSs associated with the LTOP arming temperature in order to make them consistent. *Date of issuance:* October 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 235. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-64:* The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17946). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of application for amendment:* September 25, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated June 15, September 7, September 20, and September 21, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment provides the Technical Specification
(TS)changes and evaluations of the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents for implementation of a full-scope alternative source term methodology. *Date of issuance:* September 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment No.:* 226. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20.* Amendment revised the TSs and the Operating License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8804). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of application for amendment:* June 29, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification
(TS)3.5.5, “Trisodium Phosphate,” and the associated surveillance requirements by replacing the containment sump buffering agent, trisodium phosphate, with sodium tetraborate decahydrate (STB). In particular, the amendment revises the TS Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)3.5.5, with a new weight requirement for STB. The title of the TS section is also changed from “Trisodium Phosphate” to “Containment Sump Buffering Agent and Weight Requirements.” *Date of issuance:* October 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented during the 2007 refueling outage, prior to Mode 3 entry following refueling. *Amendment No.:* 227. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20.* Amendment revised the TS and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37544). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan *Date of application for amendment:* April 18, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated July 16 and September 20, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changes Technical Specification
(TS)Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.5.2.9, to make the surveillance consistent with the plant design following planned modifications to the containment sump. Entergy Nuclear Operations'
(ENO)modification removes the existing emergency core cooling system
(ECCS)suction inlet screens. In lieu of the ECCS suction inlet screens, ENO is installing passive strainer assemblies on the 590 foot elevation of containment. The SR change was necessary to reflect the change in equipment. *Date of issuance:* October 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 228. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20.* Amendment revised the TS and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33782). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas *Date of application for amendment:* March 30, 2007, as supplemented on June 13, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)3.9.12, “Fuel Storage,” and its associated tables, figures, and surveillance requirements, TS 5.3, “Fuel Storage,” and adds TS 6.5.17, “Metamic Coupon Sampling Program.” The ANO-2 TS 3.9.12 is changed to:
(1)Support higher fuel assembly uranium-235 (U-235) enrichment;
(2)apply the appropriate loading restrictions; and
(3)delete the dry cask loading restrictions. ANO-2 TS 5.3.1 b is changed to reflect a different spent fuel pool boron concentration that is needed to assure K-effective remains less than or equal to 0.95. ANO-2 TS 5.3.2a is modified to reflect a higher fuel assembly U-235 enrichment. A new coupon sampling program is added as TS 6.5.17, and TS 4.9.12.d is added to direct performance of the coupon sampling program. *Date of issuance:* September 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 273. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6:* Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26175). The supplement dated June 13, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* September 26, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated August 8, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised the technical specifications to allow the AREVA NP Inc. Advanced Mark-BW(A) fuel assemblies to be loaded into the Braidwood Station, Unit 1 core for operating Cycles 15, 16, and 17. *Date of issuance:* October 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 145/145. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: (72 FR 152; January 3, 2007). The August 8, 2007, supplement contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of application for amendments:* October 18, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated, March 26, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments would modify the technical specifications
(TS)to risk-inform requirements regarding selected required action end states consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved industry and TS task force (TSTF-423), Revision 0, “Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A.” This TSTF was published in the **Federal Register** on March 23, 2006, as part of the consolidated line item improvement. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 184/171. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26177). The March 26, 2007, supplement contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, *et al.* , Docket No. 50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1, Beaver County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendment:* February 9, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated August 8, August 23, and September 13, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment will address Generic Safety Issue 191 “Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR Sump Performance,” by implementing Technical Specification
(TS)changes that reflect the use of a new recirculation spray system pump start signal due to a modification to the containment sump screens and replace the use of LOCTIC with the Modular Accident Analysis Program-Design Basis Accident calculation methodology to calculate containment pressure, temperature, and condensation rates for input to the SWNAUA code, which ultimately changes the aerosol removal coefficients used in dose consequence analysis. *Date of issuance:* October 5, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented prior to the first entry into Mode 4 coming out of 1R18, which begins September 2007. *Amendment No:* 280. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-66:* The amendment revised the License and TS. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20383). The supplements dated August 8, August 23, and September 13, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin *Date of application for amendments:* January 26, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated July 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment conforms the license to reflect the direct transfer of Wisconsin Electric Power Company's ownership interest and the Nuclear Management Company's operating authority for the renewed Facility Operating License, Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach) to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, as approved by order of the Commission order dated July 31, 2007. Transfer of the licenses will also authorize FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, pursuant to the general license requirements in 10 CFR 72.210, to store spent fuel in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at Point Beach. *Date of issuance:* September 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 228, 233. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 28, 2007 (72 FR 9035). The July 11, 2007, supplement contained clarifying information and did not change the staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* October 12, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the number of fuel assemblies that are allowed to be stored in the spent fuel pool
(SFP)from 1879 to 1321 in Technical Specification
(TS)4.3.3 and removes the reference to Type 4 SFP storage racks in TS limiting condition for operation 3.7.13. *Date of issuance:* October 1, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 103. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65145). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 1, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern California Edison Company, *et al.* , Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, California *Date of application for amendments:* April 28, 2006, and as supplemented by letters dated November 13 and December 22, 2006, May 7, June 15, July 27, and September 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The change increased the minimum allowed boron concentration of the spent fuel pool and allowed credit for soluble boron, guide tube inserts made from borated stainless steel, and fuel storage patterns in place of Boraflex. *Date of issuance:* September 27, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 2-213; Unit 3-205. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32606). The supplemental letters dated November 13 and December 22, 2006, May 7, June 15, July 27, and September 11, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* February 13, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications for refueling interlocks. *Date of issuance:* October 4, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 253, 197. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14308). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of application for amendments:* July 12, 2006, as supplemented on December 7, 2006, January 26, 2007, May 8, 2007, August 14, 2007, and August 22, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise the technical specifications to establish 674 feet as the minimum water level of the ultimate heat sink and 87 °F as the maximum supply header temperature of the emergency raw water cooling system. *Date of issuance:* September 28, 2007 *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 317 and 307. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79:* Amendments revised the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46939). The supplements dated December 7, 2006, January 26, 2007, May 8, 2007, August 14, 2007, and August 22, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a safety evaluation dated September 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* April 18, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated July 20, and October 2, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* Amendments revise the licenses to reflect changes in legal name of TXU Generation Company LP to Luminant Generation Company LLC. *Date of issuance:* October 9, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 7 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-139; Unit 2-139. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32685). The supplemental letters dated July 20 and October 2, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John P. Boska, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-20679 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Privacy Act of 1974: New System of Records AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). ACTION: Notice of a new system of records. SUMMARY: OPM proposes to add a new system of records to its inventory of records systems subject the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the **Federal Register** notice of the existence and character of records maintained by the agency (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)). DATES: The new system will be effective without further notice on December 3, 2007, unless we receive comments that result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Office of Personnel Management, *Attn:* Sydney Smith-Heimbrock, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Human Capital Implementation and Assessment, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Graham Humes, 202-606-2430. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Competency Assessment Tool is a web-based instrument for assessing current proficiency levels for mission critical occupations such as leadership and human resource management. It allows individuals to conduct a competency self assessment and supervisors to assess the competencies of their employees and of the position to determine competency strengths and areas for improvement. The tool advances agencies' human capital management efforts in accordance with the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework. The tool supports efforts in succession management, competency gap closure, competency development, and recruitment and retention. The tool contains competency models, a proficiency scale, a self and supervisor assessment, suggested proficiency levels for determining gaps, and agency-level access to reports and data. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)intends that the tool will have minimal effect on the privacy of individuals. Individual data from the tool is only available to agency designated points of contact for the tools. Additionally, oversight entities (e.g., Government Accountability Office) may request to review such data. The major reports of the tool provide aggregate data, not individual data. If requested, OPM may disclose aggregate level data from the tool via a governmentwide report. The tool was developed with minimizing the risk of unauthorized access to the system of records as an objective. To ensure the risk is minimized, the tool is hosted on a secure server and offers agency-designated access passwords. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)/CENTRAL-X SYSTEM NAME: Federal Competency Assessment Tool. SYSTEM LOCATION: Associate Director, Division for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-0001. Records pertaining to voluntary assessments of designated occupations such as leadership and human resources management are located on a contractor server. Records pertaining to pre-determined competencies (e.g., leadership, human resources management, or performance management) may be forwarded to designated agencies. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Current Federal employees who have voluntarily registered and completed the Federal Competency Assessment Tool. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: This system comprises voluntary self-assessments of competencies against a proficiency scale. The assessments are tied to user accounts, that contain
(a)registration information that includes demographic data to help determine participation;
(b)self assessment information; and
(c)an assessment by the supervisor. The registration information includes the following mandatory information: a. Registered users' e-mail address. b. User determined password. c. First name. d. Last name. e. Department/Agency to which the participant belongs. f. Pay plan. g. Grade. h. Occupational group/family. i. Occupational Specialty, if applicable. j. Work role, if applicable (e.g., executive, manager, supervisor, team lead). The registration information also includes the following optional information:
(a)Work address.
(b)City.
(c)State.
(d)Zip code.
(e)Country.
(f)Work telephone.
(g)Education level.
(h)Estimated years until retirement.
(i)Time in occupation. Self assessment information includes the employee's determination of his/her proficiency level against a set of competencies using a proficiency scale. The assessment by the supervisor includes the supervisor's determination of a requesting employee's proficiency level and the desired proficiency level of the position using the same set of competencies and proficiency scale. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING WITH ANY REVISIONS OR AMENDMENTS: 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1402, and 4117. Executive Orders 9830 and 13197. PURPOSE: The Federal Competency Assessment Tool is a web-based instrument for assessing the proficiency levels of Federal employees in key competencies. The tools allow an individual to conduct a competency self assessment and supervisors to assess the competencies of their employees to determine competency strengths and areas for improvement. Agencies can use the results of the assessments to support their competency gap analyses, succession management, and development efforts. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: These records and information in these records may be used: 1. To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order when OPM becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of a civil or criminal law or regulation. 2. To disclose information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual. 3. To disclose information to another Federal agency or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, when the Government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding, and such information is deemed by OPM to be arguable, relevant and necessary to the litigation. 4. By the National Archives and Records Administration in records management and inspections. 5. To provide an official of another Federal agency information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files, compiling description statistics, and making analytical studies to support the function for which the records were collected and maintained. 6. By OPM, in the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained, or for related work force studies. While published statistics and studies do not contain individual identifiers, in some instances, the selection of elements of data included in the study may be structured in such a way as to make the data individually identifiable by inference. 7. To disclose information to the Department of Justice or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which OPM is authorized to appear, when: a. OPM, or any component thereof; or b. Any employee of OPM in his or her official capacity; or c. Any employee of OPM in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or OPM has agreed to represent the employee; or d. The United States, when OPM determines that litigation is likely to affect OPM or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice or OPM is deemed by OPM to be arguable relevant and necessary to the litigation. 8. To disclose information to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM rules and regulations, investigations of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions as promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law. 9. To disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations into alleged or possible discrimination practices in the Federal sector, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, compliance by Federal agencies with the Uniform Guidelines of Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions vested in the Commission. 10. To disclose information to the Federal Labor Relations Authority or its General Counsel when requested in connection with investigations of allegations of unfair labor practices of matters before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. 11. To disclose information to the Office of Management and Budget at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process in connection with private relief legislation as set forth in OMB circular No. A-19. 12. To provide an official of another Federal agency information needed in the performance of official duties related to succession planning, workforce analysis, gap closure, competency development, recruitment and retention. 13. To disclose to a requesting Federal agency, information in connection with the hiring, retention, separation, or retirement of an employee; the issuance of a security clearance; the reporting of an investigation of an employee; the letting of a contract; the classification of a job; or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that OPM determines that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting party's decision on the matter. 14. To provide individual users the ability to view self entered data on individual competency proficiency levels. 15. To provide reports to agencies on aggregate level data of proficiency levels in identified competencies across the Government. 16. To provide agency specific raw data reports to agencies on individual level data related to proficiency levels in identified competencies. 17. To disclose aggregate level data from the Federal Competency Assessment Tools via a governmentwide report. 18. To disclose information to contractors, grantees, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Federal government. POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF STORING, RETRIEVING, SAFEGUARDING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: These records are maintained in a relational database management system hosted on a contractor's Internet server, accessed via a password-restricted system. Duplicate records also exist on magnetic tape back ups. RETRIEVABILITY: Designated points of contact from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and participating agencies can retrieve reports that aggregate the results of individual and supervisor assessments, without specifically identifying individuals. Agencies can request raw data reports that will contain the identity of individuals. An employee can retrieve individual reports (which contain a record of how the individuals assessed themselves, along with how the supervisor assessed the position). All reports are accessed via the Internet through a password-restricted system. SAFEGUARDS: These electronic records are maintained in controlled access areas. Identification cards are verified to ensure that only authorized personnel are present. Electronic records are protected by restricted access procedures, including the use of passwords and sign-on protocols which are periodically changed. Only employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Completed verifications are archived to a storage disk nightly and retained on a server for five years. When records are purged from the server, the records are transferred to a CD or other electronic media. Records in electronic media are electronically erased. CD or other electronic media are maintained for five years. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Deputy Associate Director, Center for Human Capital Implementation and Assessment, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-0001. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals wishing to inquire if this system contains information about them should contact the system manager or designee. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified: a. Name. b. Name and address of office in which currently and/or formerly employed in the Federal service. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: Individuals wishing to request access to their records in this system should contact their agency point of contact or the system manager. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified: a. Name. b. Name and address of office in which currently and/or formerly employed in the Federal service. Individuals requesting access must also follow OPM's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity and access to records (5 CFR part 297). CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE: Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records in this system should contact the agency point of contact or system manager. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified: a. Name. b. Name and address of office in which currently and/or formerly employed in the Federal service. Individuals requesting amendment of their records must also follow OPM's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and amendment of records (5 CFR part 297). RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The information in this system is obtained from: a. The individual to whom the information pertains. b. The supervisor of the individual to whom the information pertains, upon that individual's request. [FR Doc. E7-20797 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-43-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments *Summary:* In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding the following Information Collection Requests (ICR's) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR's describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine
(1)the practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the particular ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. 1. *Title and Purpose of Information Collection Request;* Railroad Service and Compensation Reports/System Access Application/Report Certification; OMB 3220-0008. Under section 9 of the Railroad Retirement Act
(RRA)and section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)maintains for each railroad employee, a record of compensation paid to that employee by all railroad employers for whom the employee worked after 1936. This record, which is used by the RRB to determine eligibility for, and amount of, benefits due under the laws it administers, is conclusive as to the amount of compensation paid to an employee during such period(s) covered by the report(s) of the compensation by the employee's railroad employer(s), except in cases when an employee files a protest pertaining to his or her reported compensation within the statute of limitations cited in section 9 of the RRA and section 6 of the RUIA. To enable the RRB to establish and maintain the record of compensation, employers are required to file with the RRB, in such manner and form and at such times as the RRB prescribes, reports of compensation of employees. Railroad Employers' Reports and Responsibilities are prescribed in 20 CFR 209. The RRB currently utilizes Form BA-3a, *Annual Report of Compensation* and Form BA-4, *Report of Creditable Compensation Adjustments* , to secure required information from railroad employers. Form BA-3a provides the RRB with information regarding annual creditable service and compensation for each individual who worked for a railroad employer covered by the RRA and RUIA in a given year. Form BA-4 provides for the adjustment of any previously submitted reports and also the opportunity to provide any service and compensation that had been previously omitted. Requirements specific to Forms BA-3a and BA-4 are prescribed in 20 CFR 209.8 and 209.9. Employers currently have the option of submitting the reports on the aforementioned forms, electronically via the Internet utilizing the RRB's Employer Reporting System
(ERS)(for Form BA-4 (Internet)), or in like format on magnetic tape cartridges, CD-ROM's and PC diskettes. The RRB proposes major changes to the information collection. They are intended to streamline the employer reporting process, ensuring more accurate and timely reporting, while eliminating or reducing the employer reporting burden associated with several other RRB information collections. Form BA-3a will be significantly revised and renamed Form BA-3, Annual Report of Compensation. Revisions to proposed Form BA-3 include the expansion of existing data fields to allow for: The reporting of amounts for Tier I and Tier II compensation greater than $99,999.99 (the annual creditable maximum for Tier I will exceed that amount within the next two years), RUIA daily pay rate amounts of more than $99.99, 4-digit year fields and expansion of the employee's name field. New Items requesting information regarding sick pay and miscellaneous compensation, the employee's current address, maximum benefit RUIA compensation, and employment relationship status for months not worked will be added. Data fields for proposed Form BA-4 and BA-4 (Internet) will be revised to allow for: The reporting of Tier I and Tier II compensation greater than $99,999.99 (the annual creditable maximum for Tier I will exceed that amount within the next two years), RUIA daily pay rate amounts of more than $99.99, 4-digit year fields and expansion of the employee's name field. New Items providing for the reporting of adjustments to the originally reported Tier I and Tier II amounts, sick pay, miscellaneous compensation, RUIA maximum benefit amounts, and an employee's daily pay rate will be added. The RRB also proposes the implementation of two additional electronic equivalent methods of submission for Form BA-3 and Form BA-4 information: File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)and secure e-mail. The information collection includes RRB Form BA-12, Application for Employer Reporting Internet Access. Form BA-12 is completed by railroad employers to obtain system access to the RRB's Employer Reporting System (ERS). Once access is obtained, authorized employees may submit reporting forms to the RRB via the Internet. The form determines what degree of access (view/only, data entry/modification or approval/submission) is appropriate for that employee. It is also used to terminate an employee's access to ERS. No changes are being proposed to Form BA-12. Lastly, the RRB proposes the addition of new Form G-440, Report Specifications Sheet, to the collection. Form G-440 will act as a certification document for various RRB employer reporting forms (Forms BA-3, BA-4, Form BA-6a, BA-6, Address Report (OMB 3220-0005), BA-9, Report of Separation Allowance or Severance Pay (OMB 3220-0173) and BA-11, Report of Gross Earnings (OMB 3220-0132)). It will also be used to record the type of medium the report was submitted on, and as a summary recapitulation sheet for reports filed on paper. The estimated completion times for Form(s) BA-3, BA-4 and G-440 vary, depending on circumstances and the method of submission. The completion time for Form BA-3 is estimated at 46 hours and 15 minutes per response for electronic submissions to 116 hours and 51 minutes for manual responses. The completion time for Form BA-4 is estimated at 20 minutes for an ERS Internet-based response (BA-4 (Internet)), 60 minutes for an electronic submission (magnetic tape cartridge, CD-ROM, diskette, secure E-mail, FTP) and 75 minutes for a manual response. The completion time for form BA-12 is estimated at 10 minutes when used to terminate system access and 20 minutes when used to obtain system access. The completion time for proposed Form G-440 is estimated at 15 minutes when submitted with a paper form and/or used to file a “zero” or “no employees” certification, 30 minutes when used as an electronic medium reporting/certification form, and 1 hour and 15 minutes when used as a certification and recapitulation form. Submission of Form BA-3, BA-4, BA-4 (Internet) and G-440 is mandatory. Completion of Form BA-12 is voluntary. It is completed only if an employer wants to submit reports via the Internet. One response is requested of each respondent for all of the forms in the collection. Depending on circumstances and method of submission chosen, multiple responses may be received from a respondent for Form BA-4 and G-440. The annual respondent burden for the information collection is estimated at 7,348 responses and 43,756 hours. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 46251-46253 on August 17, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). The RRB received comments from the Department of Commerce's, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), strongly supporting the RRB's continued collection of the data on Forms BA-3(a) and BA-4 stating “these forms are our main data source for key components of BEA's economic statistics”. No other comments were received. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Railroad Service and Compensation Reports/System Access Application/Report Certification. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0008. *Form(s) submitted:* BA-3, BA-4, BA-4(Internet), BA-12, G-440. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Abstract:* Under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, employers are required to report service and compensation for each employee to update Railroad Retirement Board records for payments of benefits. The collection obtains service and compensation information, information needed to ensure secure system access from employers who voluntarily opt to use the RRB's Internet-based Employer Reporting system to submit reporting forms, and information needed to certify employer reporting transactions. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 579. *Total Annual Responses:* 7,348. *Total Annual Reporting Hours:* 43,756. 2. *Title and Purpose of Information Collection;* Employer Reporting, 3220-0005. Under section 9 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), and section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), railroad employers are required to submit reports of employee service and compensation to the RRB as needed for administering the RRA and RUIA. To pay benefits due on a deceased employee's earnings records or determine entitlement to, and amount of annuity applied for, it is necessary at times to obtain from railroad employers current
(lag)service and compensation not yet reported to the RRB through the annual reporting process. The reporting requirements are specified in 20 CFR 209.6 and 209.7. The RRB currently utilizes Form G-88a.1, Notice of Retirement and Verification of Date Last Worked, Form G-88a.2, Notice of Retirement and Request for Service Needed for Eligibility, and Form AA-12, Notice of Death and Compensation, to obtain the required lag service and related information from railroad employers. Form G-88a.1 is a computer-generated listing sent by the RRB to railroad employers and used for the specific purpose of verifying information previously provided to the RRB regarding the date last worked by an employee. If the information is correct, the employer need not reply. If the information is incorrect, the employer is asked to provide corrected information. Form G-88a.2 is used by the RRB to secure lag service and compensation information when it is needed to determine benefit eligibility. Form AA-12 obtains a report of lag service and compensation from the last railroad employer of a deceased employee. This report covers the lag period between the date of the latest record of employment processed by the RRB and the date an employee last worked, the date of death or the date the employee may have been entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. The information is used by the RRB to determine benefits due on the deceased employee's earnings record. The RRB proposes no changes to Form AA-12, Form G-88a.1 and Form G-88a.2. In addition, 20 CFR 209.12(b) requires all railroad employers to furnish the RRB with the home addresses of all employees hired within the last year (new-hires). Form BA-6a, Form BA-6 Address Report, is used by the RRB to obtain home address information of employees from railroad employers that do not have the home address information computerized and who submit the information in a paper format. The form also serves as an instruction sheet to railroad employers who can also submit the information electronically by magnetic tape cartridge, CD-ROM, PC diskette, secure E-mail, or via the Internet (Form BA-6a (Internet)) utilizing the RRB's Employer Reporting System (ERS). The RRB proposes changes to Form BA-6a and BA-6a (Internet). The employee's name field will be expanded. A new item will be added to indicate the date an employee reported the address to his employer. The RRB also proposes the implementation of an additional electronic equivalent method of submission for BA-6a information: File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Completion of the forms is mandatory. One response is requested of each respondent. The completion time for Form G-88a.1 is estimated at 5 to 20 minutes. Form G-88a.2 is estimated at 5 minutes per response. The completion time for Form AA-12 is estimated at 5 minutes per response. The completion time for Form BA-6a varies, depending on circumstances and the method of submission. An Internet-based BA-6a (Internet) response utilizing the RRB's ERS system is estimated at 12 to 17 minutes. Electronic BA-6a responses submitted via magnetic tape, diskette, CD-ROM, secure E-mail and FTP are estimated at 15 minutes. BA-6a's responses submitted on manual form BA-6a are estimated at 32 minutes. The annual respondent burden for the information collection is estimated at 1,928 responses and 434 hours. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 46251-46253 on August 17, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). The RRB received comments from the Department of Commerce's, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), strongly supporting the RRB's continued use of Form BA-6a information as data from it (and RRB Form(s) BA-3a and BA-4) is used to prepare BEA estimates of the wages and salaries, employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds, and personal contributions for government social insurance components of State, and county personal income. No other comments were received. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Employer Reporting. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0005. *Form(s) submitted:* AA-12, G-88a.1, G-88a.2, BA-6a, BA-6a (Internet), BA-6a (E-mail). *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Abstract:* Under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, railroad employers are required to report service and compensation for employees needed to determine eligibility to and the amounts of benefits paid. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 579. *Total Annual Responses:* 1,928. *Total Annual Reporting Hours:* 434. 3. *Title and Purpose of Information Collection;* Railroad Separation Allowance or Severance Pay Report; OMB 3220-0173. Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act provides for a lump-sum payment to an employee or the employee's survivors equal to the Tier II taxes paid by the employee on a separation allowance or severance payment for which the employee did not receive credits toward retirement. The lump-sum is not payable until retirement benefits begin to accrue or the employee dies. Also, section 4 (a-1)(iii) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act provides that a railroad employee who is paid a separation allowance is disqualified for unemployment and sickness benefits for the period of time the employee would have to work to earn the amount of the allowance. The reporting requirements are specified in 20 CFR 209.14. In order to calculate and provide payments, the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)must collect and maintain records of separation allowances and severance payments which were subject to Tier II taxation from railroad employers. The RRB uses Form BA-9 to obtain information from railroad employers concerning the separation allowances and severance payments made to railroad employees and/or the survivors of railroad employees. Employers currently have the option of submitting a paper BA-9, or in equivalent format utilizing a magnetic tape cartridge, CD-ROM or PC diskette. Completion is mandatory. One response is required of each respondent. The RRB proposes changes to Form BA-9. Form BA-9 will be revised to allow for expansion of the employee's name field, 4-digit year fields, and expanded yearly compensation fields for Tier II taxed and Tier II credited amounts. The RRB also proposes the implementation of two additional electronic equivalent methods of submission for BA-9 information: File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)and secure e-mail. The completion time for Form BA-9 and all electronic equivalent methods of submission is estimated at 76 minutes. The annual respondent burden for the information collection is estimated at 360 responses and 457 burden hours. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 46251-46253 on August 17, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Railroad Separation Allowance or Severance Report. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0173. *Form(s) submitted:* BA-9. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Abstract:* Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act provides for a lump-sum payment to an employee or the employee's survivor equal to the Tier II taxes paid by the employee on a separation allowance or severance payment for which the employee did not receive credits toward retirement. The collection obtains information concerning the separation allowances and severance payments paid from railroad employers. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 20. *Total Annual Responses:* 360. *Total Annual Reporting Hours:* 457. 4. *Title and Purpose of Information Collection;* Gross Earnings Report; OMB 3220-0132. In order to carry out the financial interchange provisions of section 7(c)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB obtains annually from railroad employer's the gross earnings for their employees on a one-percent basis, i.e., 1% of each employer's railroad employees. The gross earnings sample is based on the earnings of employees whose social security numbers end with the digits “30.” The gross earnings are used to compute payroll taxes under the financial interchange. The gross earnings information is essential in determining the tax amounts involved in the financial interchange with the Social Security Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Besides being necessary for current financial interchange calculations, the gross earnings file tabulations are also an integral part of the data needed to estimate future tax income and corresponding financial interchange amounts. These estimates are made for internal use and to satisfy requests from other government agencies and interested groups. In addition, cash flow projections of the social security equivalent benefit account, railroad retirement account and cost estimates made for proposed amendments to laws administered by the RRB are dependent on input developed from the information collection. The RRB utilizes Form BA-11 or its electronic equivalent(s) to obtain gross earnings information from railroad employers. Employers currently have the option of preparing and submitting BA-11 reports on paper, or in like format on magnetic tape cartridges and PC diskettes. Completion is mandatory. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB proposes changes to Form BA-11 to allow for 4-digit year fields, to add an additional item for an employer's name and to expand the employee's name field. The RRB also proposes the implementation of two additional electronic equivalent methods of submission for BA-11 information: File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)and secure e-mail. The completion time for Form BA-11 responses submitted via magnetic tape and FTP is estimated at 5 hours. The completion time for BA-11 responses received by paper, diskette, CD-ROM, and secure E-mail is estimated at 30 minutes. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 46251-46253 on August 17, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Gross Earnings Report. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0132. *Form(s) submitted:* BA-11. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Abstract:* Section 7(c)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act requires a financial interchange between the OASDHI trust funds and the railroad retirement account. The collection obtains gross earnings of railway employees on a 1% basis. The information is used in determining the amount which would place the OASDHI funds trust in the position they would have been if railroad service had been covered by the Social Security and FIC Acts. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 168. *Total Annual Responses:* 168. *Total Annual Reporting Hours:* 107. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov.* Comments regarding the information collections should be sent to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV,* and to the Office of Management Budget at *Attn:* Desk Officer for RRB, Fax:
(202)395-6974 or via E-mail to *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20809 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Form 6-K, OMB Control No. 3235-0116, SEC File No. 270-107. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) elicits material information from foreign private issuers of publicly traded securities promptly after the occurrence of specified or other important corporate events so that investors have current information upon which to base investment decisions. The purpose of Form 6-K is to ensure that U.S. investors have access to the same information that foreign investors do when making investment decisions. Form 6-K takes approximately 8.7 hours per response and is filed by approxi-mately 12,022 issuers annually. We estimate that 75% of the 8.7 hours per response (6.525 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a total annual reporting burden of 78,444 hours (6.525 hours per response × 12,022 responses). Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: October 12, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20792 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 0-2, Form ADV-NR, SEC File No. 270-214, OMB Control No. 3235-0240. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. The titles for the collections of information are “Rule 0-2” (17 CFR 275.0-2) and “Form ADV-NR” (17 CFR 279.4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1). Rule 0-2 and Form ADV-NR facilitate service of process to non-resident investment advisers and their non-resident general partners or non-resident managing agents. The Form requires these persons to designate the Commission as agent for service of process. The purpose of this collection of information is to enable the commencement of legal and or regulatory actions against investment advisers that are doing business in the United States, but are not residents. The respondents to this information collection would be each non-resident general partner or non-resident managing agent of an SEC-registered adviser. The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-NR imposes a total burden of approximately 1.0 hours for an adviser. Based on our experience with these filings, we estimate that we will receive 18 Form ADV-NR filings annually. Based on the 1.0 hours per respondent estimate, the Commission staff estimates a total annual burden of 18 hours for this collection of information. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: October 15, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20793 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 17f-1(g), SEC File No. 270-30, OMB Control No. 3235-0290. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. • Rule 17f-1(g) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(g)) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q(f)) (“Act”) Requirements for reporting and inquiry with respect to missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen securities. Rule 17f-1(g), under the Act, requires that all reporting institutions (i.e., every national securities exchange, member thereof, registered securities association, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency, participant therein, member of the Federal Reserve System, and bank insured by the FDIC) maintain and preserve a number of documents related to their participation in the Lost and Stolen Securities Program (“Program”) under Rule 17f-1. The following documents must be kept in an easily accessible place for three years, according to paragraph (g):
(1)Copies or all reports of theft or loss (Form X-17F-1A) filed with the Commission's designee;
(2)all agreements between reporting institutions regarding registration in the Program or other aspects of Rule 17f-1; and
(3)all confirmations or other information received from the Commission or its designee as a result of inquiry. Reporting institutions utilize these records and reports
(a)to report missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to the database,
(b)to confirm inquiry of the database, and
(c)to demonstrate compliance with Rule 17f-1. The Commission and the reporting institutions' examining authorities utilize these records to monitor the incidence of thefts and losses incurred by reporting institutions and to determine compliance with Rule 17f-1. If such records were not retained by reporting institutions, compliance with Rule 17f-1 could not be monitored effectively. The Commission estimates that there are 25,628 reporting institutions (respondents) and, on average, each respondent would need to retain 33 records annually, with each retention requiring approximately 1 minute (33 minutes or .55 hours). The total estimated annual burden is 14,095.4 hours (25,628 × .55 hours = 14,095.4). Assuming an average hourly cost for clerical work of $22.00, the average total yearly record retention cost for each respondent would be $12.10. Based on these estimates, the total annual cost for the estimated 25,628 reporting institutions would be approximately $310,099. Rule 17f-1(g) does not require periodic collection, but does require retention of records generated as a result of compliance with Rule 17f-1. Under Section 17(b) and
(f)of the Act, the information required by Rule 17f-1(g) is available to the Commission and Federal bank regulators for examinations or collection purposes. Rule 0-4 of the Act deems such information to be confidential. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments should be directed to
(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov* ; and
(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this notice. Dated: October 17, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20794 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of October 22, 2007: A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and
(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 25, 2007 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Resolution of litigation claims; and Other matters related to enforcement actions. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at
(202)551-5400. Dated: October 18, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20830 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56666; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-107] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Trading Sessions on NYSE Arca Marketplace October 17, 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 October 11, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change as one constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule under section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b 4(f)(1) 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)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange, through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities” or “Corporation”), proposes to delete paragraph (a)(3)(B) from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34, which includes a list of securities eligible to trade in one or more, but not all three, of the Exchange's trading sessions. The Exchange also proposes to amend the language in paragraph (a)(3)(C) to remove the corresponding requirement to post the list of securities on its Web site since the list is obsolete. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.nyse.com,* at the Exchange'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 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 provides that the NYSE Arca Marketplace shall have three trading sessions each day: An Opening Session (4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (“ET”)), a Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET), and a Late Trading Session (4 p.m. to 8 p.m. ET). The Core Trading Session for securities described in Rules 5.1(b)(13), 5.1(b)(18), 5.2(j)(3), 8.100, 8.200, 8.201, 8.202, 8.203, 8.300, and 8.400 concludes at 4:15 p.m. ET. 5 5 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.1(b)(13), 5.2(j)(3), 8.100, 8.200, 8.201, 8.202, 8.203, 8.300, and 8.400 relate to Unit Investment Trusts, Investment Company Units, Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Trust Issued Receipts, Commodity-Based Trust Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Index Trust Shares, Partnership Units, and Paired Trust Shares, respectively. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54997 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78501 (December 29, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-77) (approving amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 including provisions relating to trading sessions of securities on the NYSE Arca Marketplace). The Exchange has expanded the trading hours for the shares of certain exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace to include all three trading sessions. 6 Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete paragraph (a)(3)(B) from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 since the list of those securities which are eligible to trade in one or more, but not all three, of the Exchange's trading sessions is now obsolete. In addition, the Exchange maintains on its Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ) a list that identifies all securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace that do not trade for the duration of each of the three sessions specified in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend the language in paragraph (a)(3)(C) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 to remove the corresponding requirement to post such list on the Exchange's Web site. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56627 (October 5, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-75) (expanding the trading sessions of certain ETFs); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56625 (October 5, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-73) (amending generic listing standards for investment company units and portfolio depositary receipts to allow for trading of ETFs in all three of the Exchange's trading sessions). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, because 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. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 10 in that it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder. 12 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-107 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-2007-107. 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 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-2007-107 and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-20806 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56663; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-74] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Series of U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options Open for Trading October 16, 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 October 4, 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 and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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). 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 Rule 1012, Series of Options Open for Trading, in order to increase the number of permissible cycle month series of U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options (“FCOs”) that may be opened for trading from three to four. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.phlx.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. 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit the Exchange to list an additional series of cycle month U.S. dollar-settled FCOs. 5 Currently, Rule 1012(a)(iii)(B) provides that, with respect to any particular class of U.S. dollar-settled FCO, series of options expiring in up to three of the four cycle months designated by the Exchange for that class may be opened for trading simultaneously. Thus, for example, in October the Exchange may have open for trading series of options expiring in the December, March and June cycle months. 6 5 Rule 1012(a)(iii)(B) provides that the Exchange may designate one expiration cycle for each class of U.S. dollar-settled FCO. An expiration cycle consists of four calendar months (“cycle months”) occurring at three-month intervals. The Exchange has designated the March, June, September, and December cycle as the expiration cycle for U.S. dollar-settled FCOs. 6 In addition to the three cycle month expirations, the Exchange currently has open two consecutive month expirations. Thus, at any given time the Exchange has open expirations at one, two, three, six, and nine months. The open series are on three of the months from the March, June, September, December cycle, plus two additional near term months (five months at all times). No change is being proposed to the consecutive month expiration series. As amended, Rule 1012(a)(iii)(B) would permit four cycle months to be open for trading simultaneously. Thus, in the example just used, in October the Exchange would be able to have open for trading series of options expiring in the December, March, June, and September contract months. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by providing investors another contract month for U.S. dollar-settled FCOs with which they can hedge their foreign currency risks. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others 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 proposed rule change 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, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, 11 the Exchange provided the Commission with 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 the filing of the proposed rule change. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 Number SR-Phlx-2007-74 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-SR-Phlx-2007-74. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-74 and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2007. 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. E7-20769 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5973] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Wine, Worship and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani” AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice, correction. SUMMARY: On October 11, 2007, notice was published on page 57987 of the **Federal Register** (volume 72, number 196) of determinations made by the Department of State pertaining to the exhibition “Wine, Worship and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani.” The referenced notice is corrected as to the description of two objects covered, and five additional objects to be included in the the exhibition. 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 corrected and additional objects to be included in the exhibition “Wine, Worship and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The corrected and additional objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the corrected and additional exhibit objects at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington, DC, from on or about December 1, 2007, until on or about February 24, 2008, at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York, NY, from on or about March 10, 2008 until on or about June 1, 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 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: October 16, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-20832 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. FHWA-2007-0006] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The OST invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)approval for renewal of a previously approved information collection that is summarized below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by December 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket ID Number FHWA-2007-0006 by any of the following methods: *Web Site:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Walterscheid, 720-963-3073, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, 12300 West Dakota Ave., Room 175, Lakewood, CO 80228, between 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. *OMB Control #:* 2105-0508. *Background:* This program implements 42 U.S.C. 4602, concerning acquisition of real property and relocation assistance for displaced persons for Federal and federally-assisted programs. It prohibits the provision of relocation assistance and payments to persons not legally in the United States (with certain exceptions). The information collected consists of a certification of residency status from affected persons to establish eligibility for relocation assistance and payments. Displacing agencies will require each person who is to be displaced by a Federal or federally-assisted project, as a condition of eligibility for relocation payments or advisory assistance, to certify that he or she is lawfully present in the United States. *Respondents:* Federal agencies, State highway agencies, local government highway agencies, and airport sponsors receiving financial assistance for expenditures of Federal funds on acquisition and relocation payments and required services to displaced persons. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,460 for file maintenance and 52 state highway agencies for statistical reports. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* The average burden per response is 16.5 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 25,000 hours. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burdens;
(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued On: October 17, 2007. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E7-20839 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION Federal Aviation Administration Second Meeting, Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and Equipment AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and Equipment. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a second meeting of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and Equipment. DATES: The meeting will be held November 6-7, 2007 starting at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone
(202)833-9339; fax
(202)833-9434; Web site *http://www.rtca.org* for directions. Note: Dress is Business Casual. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 215 meeting. The agenda will include: • November 6-7: • Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and Administrative Remarks, Review and Approval of Agenda for Second Plenary). • Review and Approval of Third Meeting Summary (215-026; RTCA Paper No. 245-07/SC215-009). • Review of Action List and Outstanding Actions. • FAA Issue Table—Outstanding Actions (215-005). • NSF-Radio Astronomy Issue (FAA/Iridium). • DO-262-Reports from Drafting Groups; Review of Drafts. • Review Outline of DO-262 Normative Appendix. • Overview/Introductory Sections (M. Meza, Iridium). • Avionics Subsystem Definitions/Overall Requirements; Avionics Design and Performance (J. Becker, Wingspeed/A. Jabs, ICG). • Antenna (K. Bomgren, Dayton-Granger). • Transceiver (M. Meza, Iridium). • Avionics Equipment Performance Verification (B. Pemberton, ARINC). • Aircraft Installation Design Requirements (S. Niessner, Aircell). • Requirements Mapping (M. Meza, Iridium). • DO-270. • Discussion of Requirements for Normative Appendix (D. Pitoniak, Continental). • Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Schedule Next Plenary Meeting, Adjourn). Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2007. Francisco Estrada C., RTCA Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 07-5214 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 33
Traces to 33 documents
CFR
10 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 5 CFR 297
  • 20 CFR 209
  • 17 CFR 240.17
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • 49 CFR 1.48
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of a new system of records
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 50.46
C.F.R.§ 50.65
C.F.R.§ 50.36
C.F.R.§ 51.22
C.F.R.§ 72.210
U.S.C.§ 552a
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite5 CFR 297
Cites 43 · 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.