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 · 2007-10-31 · DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE · Notices

Notices. 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reinstatement—Crime Mapping Survey

27,709 words·~126 min read·/register/2007/10/31/07-5406·

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

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OMB Number 1121-0223] National Institute of Justice; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reinstatement—Crime Mapping Survey. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), National Institute of Justice
(NIJ)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until December 31, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Ronald E. Wilson, National Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 25301. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate 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; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Overview of This Information Collection:*
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Reinstatement with Change.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Crime Mapping Survey.
(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* None. Office of Research and Evaluation, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Law Enforcement Agencies. Other: None. This national survey is designed to do three things. One is to determine the extent to which police departments, specifically crime analysts, are utilizing computerized crime mapping since the first survey. Two is to understand to what extent crime mapping has been adopted since the first survey. Three is to expand the survey to understand the new ways that computerized crime mapping is being utilized, including the technologies adopted. Surveys will be mailed to a randomly select sample of police departments. The questionnaire will determine the level of crime mapping within those departments, both in terms of hardware and software resources as well as the data used and types of maps that are produced and how they are used. The information collected from this survey will be used to advise the Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety (formerly the Crime Mapping Research Center) on what resources we need to provide to law enforcement who use, and want to use, crime mapping.
(5)An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 112,123 respondents will complete each form within approximately 6 minutes.
(6)An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: We estimate this survey will take 45 minutes per respondent, with the demographic section taking 10 minutes and the questions regarding crime mapping taking 35 minutes. Based on the expected sample of 2,630 respondents, the total estimated burden is 1,972 hours. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: October 25, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-21427 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 26, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-4816/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail: *John_Kraemer@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the applicable OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Radiation Sampling and Exposure Records. *OMB Control Number:* 1219-0003. *Form Number:* MSHA Form *4000-9.* *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 800. *Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden:* $0. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit (Mines). *Description:* Title 30 CFR 57.5040 requires mine operators to calculate, record and report individual exposures to concentrations of radon daughters. The calculations are based on the results of the weekly sampling required by 30 CFR 57.5037. Records are maintained by the operator and are submitted to MSHA annually. The sampling and recordkeeping requirement alerts the mine operator and MSHA to possible failure in the radon daughter control system, and permits appropriate corrective action to be taken in a timely manner. Data submitted to MSHA (on MSHA Form 4000-9, Record of Individual Exposure to Radon Daughters) is intended to:
(a)Establish a means by which MSHA can assure compliance with underground radiation standards;
(b)form a data base of miner exposure for future epidemiological studies; and
(c)assure that miners can, upon written request, have records of cumulative exposures made available to them or their estate, and to medical and legal representatives who have obtained written authorization. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Training Plan Regulations and Certificate of Training. *OMB Number:* 1219-0009. *Form Number:* MSHA Form 5000-23. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,216. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 19,186. *Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden:* $245,144. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit (Mines). *Description:* Title 30, CFR 48.9 and 48.29 require records of training for underground and surface mines, respectively. Upon completion of each training program, the mine operator certifies on a form approved by the Secretary (MSHA Form 5000-23) that the miner has received the specified training in each subject area of the approved health and safety training plan. Upon approval by the MSHA District Manager, training plans are returned to the mine operator. The approved plans are used to implement training programs for training new miners, training experienced miners, training miners for new tasks, annual refresher training, and hazard training. The plans are also used by MSHA to ensure that all miners are receiving the training necessary to perform their jobs in a safe manner. In summary, the Form 5000-23 provides the mine operator with a recordkeeping form, the miner with a certificate of training, and MSHA with a monitoring tool for determining compliance requirements. The form in its present format provides the industry with one form that complies with all the requirements of the training regulations. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21419 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 26, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission the following public information collection requests
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Non-monetary Determination Activity Report. *OMB Control Number:* 1205-0150. *Form Number:* ETA-207. *Affected Public:* State Governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 896. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* Claimants for unemployment insurance may be denied their benefits for reasons associated with their separation from employment, such as voluntary quit, or questions of continuing eligibility, such as refusal of suitable work. This data is a byproduct of the normal program operations. The ETA 207 report contains state data on the number and types of issues that arise and on the denials of benefits that may result. These data are used by the Office of Workforce Security
(OWS)to determine workload counts, to enable the OWS to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of adjudication determination procedures, and to evaluate the impact of state and Federal legislation with respect to disqualifications. The data are also used for general statistical purposes. No similar data are available from other sources. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Resource Justification Model (RJM). *OMB Number:* 1205-0430. *Form Number:* RJM Version 2.4 and ETA Handbook 410. *Affected Public:* State Governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 6,519. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The information collected by the RJM program is for budget formulation and grant allocation to the states for the unemployment insurance program. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21451 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 26, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of the ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Brian A. Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of a previously approved collection. *Title:* National Compensation Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0164. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profits and not-for-profits institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 34,929. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 49,644. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* Under the National Compensation Survey (NCS), the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)conducts ongoing surveys of compensation (earning and benefits) and job characteristics. The NCS produces data on local, regional and national levels by sampling establishments various localities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NCS samples 152 areas, of which 117 are metropolitan areas. Data from the 48 contiguous States is used to provide data to the President's Pay Agent to meet the BLS obligation under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA). NCS data produces the Employment Cost Index
(ECI)which is designated as a principal Federal Economic Indicator under OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 3. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21456 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221
(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221
(a)of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 13, 2007. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 13, 2007. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of October 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 10/15/07 and 10/19/07] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 62301 AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc.
(Comp)Bayonne, NJ 10/15/07 10/10/07 62302 Aalfs Manufacturing
(Wkrs)Mena, AR 10/15/07 10/07/07 62303 Agilent Technologies, Inc.
(Comp)Liberty Lake, WA 10/15/07 10/12/07 62304 Biomet Bracing
(Comp)Marlow, OK 10/15/07 10/12/07 62305 Kimball Electronics (State) Hibbing, MN 10/16/07 10/15/07 62306 H C Holding (State) Wadena, MN 10/16/07 10/15/07 62307 Robert Bosch, LLC
(Comp)Gallatin, TN 10/16/07 10/15/07 62308 Robertshaw Controls/Invensys Controls
(Comp)Long Beach, CA 10/16/07 10/02/07 62309 Kohler Company
(UAW)Kohler, WI 10/16/07 10/12/07 62310 Healthcare Management Partners
(Wkrs)Santa Ana, CA 10/16/07 10/02/07 62311 L R Nelson (State) Peoria, IL 10/16/07 10/15/07 62312 Ridgeway Furniture
(Wkrs)Ridgeway, VA 10/16/07 10/15/07 62313 Stanley Furniture Company
(Comp)Martinsville, VA 10/16/07 10/15/07 62314 Motorola Inc.
(Comp)Schaumburg, IL 10/17/07 09/27/07 62315 Lottery Commission
(Wkrs)Boise, ID 10/17/07 10/04/07 62316 MECO Corporation
(Comp)Greeneville, TN 10/17/07 10/09/07 62317 Kemira Chemicals
(Wkrs)Washougal, WA 10/17/07 10/16/07 62318 R.L. Stowe Mills Inc.
(Comp)Belmont, NC 10/17/07 10/16/07 62319 E. G. Fashion Inc.
(Wkrs)New York, NY 10/17/07 10/17/07 62320 Precision of Legget & Platt Aluminum Group (State) Malvern, AR 10/18/07 10/17/07 62321 Dexter Axle (State) Manchester, IN 10/18/07 10/17/07 62322 Precision Industries
(UAW)Fayetteville, AR 10/18/07 10/17/07 62323 Teradyne, Inc.
(Comp)North Reading, MA 10/18/07 10/17/07 62324 Flynn Enterprises Inc., LLC
(Wkrs)Hopkinsville, KY 10/18/07 10/17/07 62325 Triton Operations d/b/a Webster Hardwoods, LLC
(Wkrs)Bangor, WI 10/18/07 10/17/07 62326 Kasper ALS (State) Secaucus, NJ 10/19/07 09/19/07 62327 Coshocton Leasing Company LLC
(Comp)Coshocton, OH 10/19/07 10/17/07 62328 Thompson Scientific (State) Cherry Hill, NJ 10/19/07 09/19/07 62329 Honeywell Sensing and Control
(Comp)Minneapolis, MN 10/19/07 10/17/07 62330 Gerdau Ameristeel
(Comp)Perth Amboy, NJ 10/19/07 10/19/07 62331 Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc.
(Comp)Ansonia, CT 10/19/07 10/18/07 [FR Doc. E7-21352 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,013] Columbia Lighting: Spokane, WA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 21, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Columbia Lighting, Spokane, Washington. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of October, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21350 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,353] Hewlett Packard: Fort Collins, CO; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 24, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers at Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado. The workers at the subject facility provide troubleshooting support for Hewlett Packard customers. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of October 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21349 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of *October 15 through October 19, 2007* . In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,117; Intasco USA, Port Huron, MI: September 6, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,005; Novacel, Inc., Newton, MA: September 30, 2007.* *TA-W-62,025; Seminole Tubular Products—Wheatland Tube Co., John Maneely Company, Houston, TX: August 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,225; Delphi Corporation, East River Lab Facility, Moraine, OH: September 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,228; Waverly Mills, Inc., A Subsidiary of R.J. Kunic and Co., Laurinburg, NC: September 26, 2006.* *TA-W-62,249; Fiskars Brands, Inc., Sauk City, WI: October 3, 2006.* *TA-W-62,275; Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., Connectors Business Unit, Workforce Personnel, Clanton, AL: October 5, 2006.* *TA-W-62,299; GDX Automotive, Inc., North American Division, A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of GDX Automotive North America, Batesville, AR: October 11, 2006.* *TA-W-61,860; Laser Die and Engineering, A Subsidiary of Hi-Tec Enterprises, Hi-Tec Employment Services, LLC, Kentwood, MI: July 20, 2006.* *TA-W-61,860A; J-Tec Products Co., A Subsidiary of Hi-Tec Enterprises, Hi-Tec Employment Services, LLC, Kentwood, MI: July 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,108; Vermont Plywood, LLC, Hancock, VT: September 4, 2006.* *TA-W-62,162; Through The Barn Door Furniture Co., Henderson, NC: September 18, 2006.* *TA-W-62,182; Ideal Tool Company, Inc., Tooling Division, On-Site Leased Workers From M-Ploy Temporaries, Meadville, PA: September 18, 2006.* *TA-W-62,218; Neilsen Manufacturing, Inc., Salem, OR: November 9, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,062; IPC Command Systems, A Division of IPC Information Systems, LLC, Mount Laurel, NJ: August 22, 2006.* *TA-W-62,209; Lear Corporation, Seating Systems Division, Walker, MI: September 25, 2006.* *TA-W-62,224; Porter Engineered Systems Ohio, Including Global Technical Recruiters, Solon, OH: September 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,235; Sanmina-SCI, Enterprise Computing, Remedy, Fountain, CO: September 13, 2007.* *TA-W-62,296; Delphi Corporation #1, Powertrain Division, Oak Creek, WI: October 3, 2006.* *TA-W-62,192; TMP Directional Marketing, LLC, Graphics Division, Fort Wayne, IN: September 19, 2006.* *TA-W-62,203; HDM Furniture Industries, Inc., Plant 43 Morganton Casegoods, Manpower, Friday, etc., Morganton, NC: September 25, 2006.* *TA-W-62,208; Tyco Valves and Controls, Manpower, Adecco, Resource Mfg & All Tech, Houston, TX: September 25, 2006.* *TA-W-62,236; AB Automotive, Inc., On-Site Leased Workers From Corestaff Services and Manpower Services, Smithfield, NC: September 30, 2006.* *TA-W-62,301; AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc., Chemicals Division, Bayonne, NJ: October 10, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-61,639; Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Casting and Extrusion Divisions, Ellenville, NY: May 30, 2007.* *TA-W-62,137; Drake Extrusion, Inc., Div. of Chapelthorpe, Ridgeway, VA: September 11, 2006.* *TA-W-62,285; Carolina Textile Company, Inc., Dobson, NC: October 1, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-62,117; Intasco USA, Port Huron, MI.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-62,017; Fargo Electronics, A Subsidiary of HID Global, Eden Prairie, MN.* *TA-W-62,133; Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, NC.* *TA-W-62,229; Learjet, Inc., A Subsidiary of Bombardier, Inc., Wichita, KS.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *None.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-61,862; OEM/Erie, Inc., Erie, PA.* *TA-W-61,902; Gates Corporation, Power Transmission Division, Moncks Corner, SC.* *TA-W-61,936; Gruber Systems, Inc., Valencia, CA.* *TA-W-62,085; Smurfit Stone Container Corporation, Container Division, Columbia, SC.* *TA-W-62,101; American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, Moorefield, WV.* *TA-W-62,115; Rheem Sales Company, Air Conditioning Division, A Subsidiary of Rheem Mfg. Co., Milledgeville, GA.* *TA-W-62,119; Cygne Design, Commerce, CA.* *TA-W-62,216; Woolrich, Inc, Corporate Headquarters, Woolrich, PA.* *TA-W-62,271; Ravenwood Specialty Services, Inc., Ravenswood, WV.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-61,990; CDI Corporation, CDI IT Solutions (IMB NE), Fishkill, NY.* *TA-W-62,166; Thompson Scientific, Thompson Scientific IDPO, Cherry Hill, NJ.* *TA-W-62,199; Faith Technologies, Appleton, WI.* *TA-W-62,252; Gavin Chevrolet Buick Pontiac Inc, Middleville, MI.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *TA-W-61,669; Superior Mills, Inc., Marion, VA.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of *October 15 through October 19, 2007.* Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: October 25, 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21353 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,253] Manpower Incorporated, Spring Lake, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 4, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Manpower Incorporated, Spring Lake, Michigan. Workers of the subject firm are covered by a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance and alternative trade adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-61,530 (amended), that does not expire until August 23, 2009. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and the investigation under this petition has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21356 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,316] Meco Corporation, Greeneville, TN; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 17, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Meco Corporation, Greeneville, Tennessee. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of October 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21351 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,266] Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, Concord, California; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On August 9, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in *Former Employees of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation* v. *United States Secretary of Labor* (Court No. 07-00182). On April 19, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Negative Determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)applicable to workers and former workers of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, Concord, California (the subject firm). (Administrative Record (“AR”) 64). The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26425). (AR 76). The determination stated that, because the workers did not produce an article, and did not support a firm or appropriate subdivision that produced an article domestically, the workers cannot be considered import impacted or affected by a shift of production abroad. (AR 64-65). Administrative reconsideration was not requested by any of the parties pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18. The complaint alleges that the subject workers are eligible to apply for worker adjustment assistance due to a shift of production to India followed by increased imports (“our work was sent to Bangalore, India * * * our daily contract underwriting work was retrieved electronically by this team * * * then sent electronically back to * * * the United States”). In order for the Secretary to issue a certification, petitioners must meet the group eligibility requirements under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The applicable requirements can be satisfied in one of two ways: I. Section (a)(2)(A)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; *and* B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; *and* C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; *and* B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; *and* C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; *or* 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; *or* 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. In order to determine whether the subject workers meet the TAA group eligibility requirements, the Department must first determine whether or not an article was produced at the subject firm, then determine whether the workers are adversely impacted by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or by a shift in production abroad of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the subject firm. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“MGIC”) is a mortgage guaranty insurance provider. (AR 58, AR 63, Supplemental Administrative Record (“SAR”) 17). A mortgage insurance provider is a company that provides household and business customers with mortgage insurance as protection from credit losses. (AR 52, AR 58). MGIC uses its affiliate, MGIC Investor Services Corporation (“MISC”), to perform contract underwriting services. (SAR 17). MGIC owns and operates loan processing centers in Concord, California; the Troy/Detroit metropolitan area, Michigan; and Atlanta, Georgia. (AR 57, AR 63, SAR 18, SAR 28, SAR 37). Financial lenders send loan applications to MISC to be reviewed and for MISC to render an opinion as to whether or not the loan applications meet the lenders' requirements. (SAR 17-18, SAR 28, SAR 37, SAR 46). Applications are scanned at a processing center and entered into the main database. (SAR 28, SAR 37, SAR 46). Underwriters located in the various processing centers pull files from a queue of applications to process. (SAR 28, SAR 37, SAR 46). Their duties include entering data, loan indexing, and data validation. (AR 3, AR 44, AR 58, AR 62-63, AR 64, SAR 18, SAR 28, SAR 46). When a loan application is approved, the underwriter will issue a Notice of Loan Approval (NOLA). (AR 3-5, SAR 17, SAR 28, SAR 37, SAR 46). The NOLA is a letter issued to the applicant that indicates that the application is approved. (AR 3-5, AR 63, SAR 17-18, SAR 28, SAR 37). MGIC states that “[t]he NOLA is a written document that memorializes MISC's opinion regarding the loan. It is not a tangible product. It is merely a piece of paper indicating that MISC has determined that a specific loan meets the designated underwriting requirements.” SAR 17. Each NOLA provides a MISC point of contact for customer service purposes. (SAR 18, SAR 28, SAR 37, SAR 46). In August 2005, MISC entered into an agreement with another U.S. company (hereafter referred to as “the contractor”) that provided for a team in India to perform contract underwriting services. (AR 50, SAR 18, SAR 29, SAR 37). The contractor's creation of a team in India would take advantage of the time difference between the U.S. and India, thereby enabling the subject firm to meet its customer service processing requirement (forty-eight hours to process a loan application). (SAR 18, SAR 29, SAR 37). The Plaintiffs allege that the team in India was created for cost reduction purposes (SAR 37) and that Plaintiffs were informed of this new team in September 2005. (SAR 29, SAR 37, SAR 46). Under a pilot program that began in January 2006, the team in India processed loans for MISC. (SAR 18, SAR 29, SAR 38, SAR 46). The Concord, California center ceased to operate in April 2006 (AR 2, AR 44, SAR 30, SAR 37, SAR 42, SAR 46), and the work performed at that center was shifted to other locations. (AR 51, AR 57, AR 63, AR 64, SAR 18, SAR 30). In June 2006, the contractor's team in India was fully incorporated into the loan processing operation and began reviewing files from all MISC centers. (SAR 18). MISC then contacted customers (SAR 18) and employees (SAR 19-24) regarding the arrangement with the contractor. In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker group seeking certification must work for a firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article and there must be a relationship between the workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision. Here, the workers' firm reviewed loan applications on behalf of financial lenders to determine whether the applications met the lender's requirements. Approval of a loan application was evidenced by a document called a NOLA. The threshold issue is whether the workers' firm produces an “article” for the purpose of certification. The Department consulted the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) in order to properly characterize the type of company that is at issue. The NAICS Web site states that “The North American Industry Classification System * * * was developed as the standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the collection, analysis, and publication of statistical data related to the business economy of the U.S.” *http://www.naics.com/faq.htm#q1.* That reference classifies a mortgage guaranty firm under sector 52—Finance and Insurance, Subsector 534—Insurance Carriers and Related Activities, entry No. 524126—Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers (SAR 57-58). This category is comprised of firms that are “primarily engaged in initially underwriting (i.e., assuming the risk and assigning premiums) insurance policies that protect policyholders against losses that may occur as a result of property damage or liability” (SAR 58). Under the NAICS, MGIC, as a mortgage guaranty insurance provider, is a service provider under sector 52 and is not classified as a manufacturing company under sector 31-33, which are industries that produce an article. While such a designation is not controlling on whether an article is produced by the firm, the primary activity of the company is useful in understanding what a firm does for its customers, which aids in determining whether a firm produces an article, or provides services, for those customers. MGIC is clearly a service provider which did not produce an article for its customers. MGIC provides loan review services that may incidentally result in a document evidencing the services provided, the NOLA. Issuance of a NOLA by MGIC cannot be considered production of an article under the Act. As noted by the workers themselves, the affected group “produces” “data entry support and the completion of Notice of Loan Approvals (‘NOLAS’) by validators and underwriters.” AR 3. No article is produced, merely a portion of a “loan package” for the approval or denial of a loan application. The NOLA itself is not a marketable commodity. It has no commercial value to the firm's customers and only memorializes the expertise and analysis of the firm in determining whether a loan should be approved or denied. MGIC is not in the business of producing an article as a manufacturing firm does and then selling it, nor does it receive revenue from the selling the NOLA. MGIC's revenue flows from the decision and analysis of whether mortgage guaranty insurance should be issued and the revenue from selling that insurance. The NOLA merely memoralizes that decision and the analysis that went into it. Therefore, it is not an article under the Act. Even if the Department accepts the Plaintiff's allegation that the NOLA is an “article”, the issuance of a NOLA is merely incidental to the service provided by MGIC. It is not an “article” that is covered under the Act. In the Notice of Revised Determination on Remand for Lands' End, A Subsidiary of Sears Roebuck and Company, Business Outfitters CAD Operations, Dodgeville, Wisconsin, TA-W-56,688 (issued March 24, 2006, published at 71 FR 18357), the Department acknowledged that a firm may produce an intangible article, software that is transmitted electronically, that may be covered by the Act. However, the Department emphasized that those workers who provide services are not engaged in the production of an article for the purposes of the Act, even if a written record is generated in the provision of those services. In *Lands' End,* the Department noted: The Department stresses that it will continue to implement the longstanding precedent that firms must produce an article to be certified under the Act. This determination is not altered by the fact [that] the provision of a service may result in the incidental creation of an article. For example, accountants provide services for the purposes of the Act even though, in the course of providing those services, they may generate audit reports or similar financial documents that might be articles on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Such is the case here. Just like the accounting firm example in *Lands' End* , a tax preparation firm is not selling its customers a tax return; rather, it is selling its expertise in correctly organizing the customer's data into the proper form to meet Internal Revenue Service requirements. Similarly, MGIC is in the business of providing mortgage guaranty insurance for a fee. It receives a loan application from a client (the financial lender) and evaluates the data against a lending requirement established by the client. It then determines, based on the facts in the documentation, whether the loan qualifies for the issuance of insurance. The fact that the services it provides may result in a written document, such as a NOLA, which memorializes its analysis, does not mean that MGIC is in the business of supplying forms or otherwise producing an article. Most businesses, including service firms, generate written records (i.e., records, prescriptions, receipts, bills, timecards, etc.) as part of its operations. Since the Act's requirement that the workers' firm produce an article was intended to limit certification to workers for manufacturers, the Department does not consider the mere existence of these NOLAs as evidence that the firm produces an article and that the workers who generate the documents for the firm fall within the scope of the TAA program. Applying the Department's methodology of determining the classification of the subject firm and the statutory requirement that the firm produce an article to the facts of the case at hand, the Department determines that the NOLAs and any other incidental documents generated by the subject workers of MGIC do not constitute production of an article for purposes of the Trade Act. Such incidental documents are generated as a result of activities that are incidental to the services provided. Therefore, these workers are not covered under the Act. The fact that a written record is generated does not make the service firm a production firm. The Department's policy to provide TAA benefits to workers who support a domestic production facility that is import-impacted is supported by current regulation. 29 CFR 90.11(c)(7) requires that the petition includes a “description of the articles produced by the workers” firm or appropriate subdivision, the production or sales of which are adversely affected by increased imports, and a description of the imported articles concerned. If available, the petition should also include information concerning the method of manufacture, end uses, and wholesale or retail value of the domestic articles produced and the United States tariff provision under which the imported articles are classified. The Department operates the program in accordance with current law, including coverage of secondary workers and workers in the oil and gas industry. When the other statutory requirements are met, the Trade Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to certify groups of workers at a firm producing an article, as well as workers engaged in services supporting production of an article, including oil and gas production, or the final assembly or finishing of articles that were the basis for a certification of eligibility. Workers at MGIC do not fall within any of these categories. A shift to a foreign country of work unrelated to the production of an article, by a firm that does not produce an article, cannot be a basis for TAA certification. While the Department has discretion to issue regulations and guidance on the operation of a program that it is charged with implementing, the Department cannot expand the program to include workers that Congress did not intend to cover. This is in accord with the Congressional mandate that requires the production of an article by workers in order for a company to be covered under the Act. In 2002, while amending the Trade Act, the Senate explained the purpose and history of TAA: Since it began, TAA for workers has covered mostly manufacturing workers, with a substantial portion of program participants being steel and automobile workers in the mid- to late-1970s to early 1980s, and light industry and apparel workers in the mid- to late-1990s. In fiscal years 1995 through 1999, the estimated number of workers covered by certifications under the two TAA for workers programs averaged 167,000 annually, reaching a high of about 228,000 in 1999, despite a falling overall unemployment rate. During the same period, approximately 784 firms were certified under the TAA for firms program. Participating firms represent a broad array of *industries producing manufactured products* , including auto parts, agricultural equipment, electronics, jewelry, circuit boards, and textiles, as well as some producers of agricultural and forestry products. S. Rep. 107-134, S. Rep. No. 134, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2002, 2002 WL 221903 (February 4, 2002) (emphasis added). Clearly, the language suggests the focus of TAA is the manufacture of marketable goods. Congress has recognized the difference between manufacturers and service firms and that an amendment to the Trade Act is needed to cover workers in service firms. It has recently rejected at least two attempts to amend the Trade Act to expand TAA coverage to service firms. It did not pass either the “Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act of 2005” or the “Fair Wage, Competition, and Investment Act of 2005.” Most recently, Senator Baucus introduced the “Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007,” which provides for an expansion of coverage to workers in a “service sector firm” when there are increased imports of services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services provided in the United States, or a shift in provision of like or directly competitive articles or services to a foreign country. Thus, the definition of “article” continues to distinguish between firms that manufacture articles and those that provide services. Clearly, Congress has specifically allowed TAA eligibility for specific service industries. See, section 222(c)(2)(A), workers in the oil or natural gas drilling or exploration field. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-418, § 421(a)(1988). It has not done so here. While the Plaintiffs assert that the findings of *Former Employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation* v. *United States Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 03-00373, and *Former Employees of Gale Group, Inc* . v. *United States Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 04-00374, and *Former Employees of Tesco Technologies, LLC* v. *United States Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 05-00264, support their position that the subject workers are eligible to apply for TAA, Department believes that the cases do not support certification here. In *Former Employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation* and *Former Employees of Gale Group, Inc.* , the Department certified the workers based on the findings that the workers produced an article, that there were increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with the software code produced by the subject firm, and the increased imports contributed importantly to the workers' separations. In *Former Employees Tesco Technologies, LLC.* , the Department certified the workers based on the findings that there was a shift in production abroad of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the subject firm followed by increased imports of such articles contributed importantly to the subject workers' separations. Those cases are not relevant because the workers in the case at hand do not produce an article for purposes of the Trade Act. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance and alternative trade adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, Concord, California. Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of October 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21354 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,958] Philip Morris Products International, LLC; McKenney, VA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application postmarked October 10, 2007, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local No. 358 requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on August 27, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51845). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The petition for the workers of Philip Morris Products International, LLC, McKenney, Virginia engaged in production of partially stemmed tobacco was denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's declining customers. The investigation revealed that all partially stemmed tobacco produced by the subject firm was exported to other countries and the subject firm had no domestic customers. The investigation further revealed that there was no shift in production from that firm to a foreign country which is a party to a Free Trade Agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country, nor did the subject firm import partially stemmed tobacco in 2005, 2006 and January through July 2007. The petitioner stated that even though the workers of the subject firm produced partially stemmed tobacco, Philip Morris also produces cigarettes and workers of the subject firm should be considered as workers supporting production of cigarettes. The petitioner further stated that the parent company of the subject firm closed cigarette production facilities in Cabarras, North Carolina, which would result in increased imports of cigarettes into the United States. The petitioner alleges that because of these imports of cigarettes, the workers of the subject firm who produce partially stemmed tobacco should be certified eligible for TAA. The Department contacted the company official for further clarification. The company official stated that Philip Morris Products International, LLC, McKenney, Virginia is an Export Processing Facility, which exclusively produces partially stemmed tobacco for export. The company official also confirmed that none of the partial stemmed tobacco from the subject firm was sold to any U.S. facilities in 2005, 2006 or 2007. The company official further stated that the employees of the subject firm did not support production at any domestic facility, including the domestic production facility in Cabarrus, North Carolina. The official further stated that the production from the subject facility is being shifted to Italy, Portugal, Malaysia, Russia, Greece and the Ukraine, countries which are not parties to a free trade agreement with the United States or beneficiary countries. The subject firm is not increasing imports of partially stemmed tobacco after the shift. In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. Imports of cigarettes cannot be considered like or directly competitive with partially stemmed tobacco produced by Philip Morris Products International, LLC, McKenney, Virginia and imports of cigarettes are not relevant in this investigation. The subject firm reported no imports of partially stemmed tobacco and there are no domestic customers who purchase partially stemmed tobacco from the subject firm and who might have increased imports of partially stemmed tobacco during the relevant time period. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of October, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21355 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Notice of Charter Renewal for the Youth Advisory Committee AGENCY: National Council on Disability. ACTION: Notice of renewal. SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463). Following consultation with the U.S. General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Chairperson of the National Council on Disability
(NCD)is renewing the charter for the Youth Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Youth Advisory Committee is to provide input into NCD activities consistent with the values and goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerrie Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Program Analyst, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax), *youth@ncd.gov* (e-mail). The certification of Charter renewal is published below: Certification I hereby certify that Charter renewal of the Youth Advisory Committee is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Council on Disability. John R. Vaughn, Chairperson. Dated: October 23, 2007. Michael C. Collins, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-21461 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities: Meeting #62 Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities
(PCAH)will be held on November 15, 2007, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. (ending time is tentative). The meeting will be held in the Salon IIIB, The Ritz-Carlton , 1150 22nd Street, Washington, DC 20037. The Committee meeting will begin with welcome, introductions, and announcements. Updates and discussion on recent programs and activities will follow, including a focus on PCAH's international projects. The meeting also will include a review of PCAH ongoing programming for youth arts and humanities learning, preservation and conservation, and special events. Karen Elias, Acting General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), will present the annual ethics briefing for members. The meeting will adjourn after discussion of other business, as necessary, and closing remarks. The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was created by Executive Order in 1982, which currently states that the “Committee shall advise, provide recommendations to, and assist the President, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services on matters relating to the arts and the humanities.” Any interested persons may attend as observers, on a space available basis, but seating is limited. Therefore, for this meeting, individuals wishing to attend are advised to contact Jenny Schmidt of the President's Committee seven
(7)days in advance of the meeting at
(202)682-5560 or write to the Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Suite 526, Washington, DC 20506. Further information with reference to this meeting can also be obtained from Ms. Schmidt. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Accessability, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Suite 724, Washington, DC 20506,
(202)682-5532, TDY-TDD
(202)682-5560, at least seven
(7)days prior to the meeting. Dated: October 26, 2007. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E7-21445 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meeting of National Council on the Humanities AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet in Washington, DC on November 15-16, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities with respect to policies, programs, and procedures for carrying out his functions, and to review applications for financial support from and gifts offered to the Endowment and to make recommendations thereon to the Chairman. The meeting will be held in the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A portion of the morning and afternoon sessions on November 15-16, 2007, will not be open to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Council will consider information that may disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority dated July 19, 1993. The agenda for the sessions on November 15, 2007 will be as follows: Committee Meetings Open to the Public Policy Discussion 2-3 p.m. Challenge Grants/Public Programs—Room 420 Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510A Preservation and Access—Room 415 Research Programs—Room 315. Closed to the Public Discussion of specific grant applications and programs before the Council. 3 p.m. until Adjourned Challenge Grants/Public Programs—Room 420 Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510A Preservation and Access—Room 415 Research Programs—Room 315 The morning session of the meeting on November 16, 2007 will convene at 9 a.m., in the first floor Council Room M-09, and will be open to the public, as set out below. The agenda for the morning session will be as follows: A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting B. Reports 1. Introductory Remarks 2. Staff Report 3. Congressional Report 4. Reports on Policy and General Matters a. Challenge Grants b. Public Programs c. Education Programs d. Federal/State Partnership e. Preservation and Access f. Research Programs The remainder of the proposed meeting will be given to the consideration of specific applications and will be closed to the public for the reasons stated above. Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or by calling
(202)606-8322, TDD
(202)606-8282. Advance notice of any special needs or accommodations is appreciated. Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee, Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21441 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541) AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)is required to publish notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received. DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by November 30, 2007. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address or
(703)292-7405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applications received are as follows: 1. *Applicant: Permit Application No.:* 2008-030. Christopher Linder, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 7328 24th Avenue, NE., Seattle, WA 98115. *Activity for Which Permit Is Requested:* Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant plans to enter Cape Crozier (ASPA #124), Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds (ASPA #157), and Cape Royds (ASPA #121) for the purpose of videotaping scientific research with penguins as part of an International Polar Year
(IPY)education and outreach project, “Live from the Poles”. Live from the Poles will help heighten public awareness during IPY by bringing cutting-edge science to diverse, worldwide audiences of students, teachers, and the public. *Location:* Cape Crozier (ASPA #124), Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds (ASPA #157), and Cape Royds (ASPA #121). *Dates:* November 24, 2007 to January 13, 2008. Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. [FR Doc. E7-21362 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80] In the Matter of NRG South Texas LP, STP Nuclear Operating Company, (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2); Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Facility Operating Licenses I NRG South Texas LP (NRG South Texas) is a co-holder of the Facility Operating Licenses numbered NPF-76 and NPF-80, which authorize the possession, use, and operation of South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The facilities are located in southwest Matagorda County, Texas, which is approximately 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City and 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay. STP is jointly owned by three entities: NRG South Texas, 44 percent; City of Public Service Board of San Antonio, 40 percent; and City of Austin, Texas, 16 percent. In addition, these entities each hold a corresponding percentage interest in STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), which operates STP. II By application dated May 3, 2007, as supplemented by electronic mail dated June 28, 2007, and letters dated July 23 and October 3, 2007, STPNOC, on behalf of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG Energy), and NRG South Texas LP, requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission), pursuant to Section 50.80 of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of the STP licenses to the extent held by NRG South Texas with respect to its ownership interest in STP. Currently, NRG Energy is the indirect owner of 100 percent of NRG South Texas. Under a proposed corporate restructuring, a new holding company, NRG Holdings, Inc., will be created. NRG Energy will become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG Holdings, Inc. Accordingly, NRG Holdings, Inc. will acquire indirect control of the licenses for STP to the extent currently held by NRG South Texas. In addition, NRG Holdings, Inc. will become an indirect co-owner of STPNOC, with respect to the interest in STPNOC currently held by NRG South Texas. To the extent the proposed corporate restructuring would thus result in the indirect transfer of control of the STP licenses as held by STPNOC, prior NRC consent was also requested. Notice of the requests for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37546). No comments or hearing requests were received. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80(a), no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application as supplemented and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements in the application as supplemented, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed indirect transfer of control of NRG South Texas to NRG Holdings, Inc. as described herein will not affect the qualifications of NRG South Texas as holder of the STP licenses to the extent now held by it, and that the indirect transfer of control of the licenses, to the extent effected by the proposed transaction described in the application, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC pursuant thereto. The NRC staff further concludes that, to the extent the proposed indirect transfer of control of NRG South Texas would result in an indirect transfer of control of the STP licenses as held by STPNOC, such proposed indirect transfer of control of NRG South Texas will not affect the qualifications of STPNOC to hold the STP licenses, and such indirect transfer of control of the licenses as held by STPNOC is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated October 22, 2007. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, *it is hereby ordered* that the application regarding the indirect license transfers related to the proposed establishment of NRG Holdings, Inc. is approved, subject to the following condition: Should the indirect transfer of control of NRG South Texas to NRG Holdings, Inc. not be completed within one year from the date of this Order, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated May 3, 2007, and supplemental electronic mail dated June 28, 2007, and letters dated July 23 and October 3, 2007, and the safety evaluation dated October 22, 2007, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-21433 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-9027] Notice of Issuance of Decommissioning Amendment for Cabot Corporation The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has approved the Cabot Corporation (Cabot) decommissioning plan
(DP)for the Reading site by amendment to their Source Material License, SMC-1562. The Reading site is located in Reading, PA, near the Buttonwood Street bridge. The site operated intermittently between April 1967 and May 1969 for the production of niobium by extraction from tin slag feedstock. The main processing building was removed from the license in August 1995 by license amendment. The licensee first submitted a DP for the Reading site on August 28, 1998 (Accession No. 9809140068). The submittal was revised in March 2000 to reflect revised dose modeling scenarios and in June 2005 (ML051330369, ML051330364) to incorporate a rip-rap erosion barrier. Revision 3 to the DP was submitted later in June 2005, to reflect changes to the rip-rap design after licensee consultation with the City of Reading Redevelopment Authority (ML053560277). The licensee submitted revision 4 of the Reading site DP and related documents to the NRC for review and approval in August 2006, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession numbers ML062360159, ML062360164, and ML062210261) as supplemented on September 21, 2006 (ADAMS accession number ML062640081). This amendment revised the rip-rap cover design and include cover design analysis. An environmental assessment was completed on October 16, 2007 (ML072390296). The NRC approved the DP by Amendment No. 9 to the Source Material License SMC-1562 on October 24, 2007. A “Notice of Consideration of Amendment Request for Decommissioning the Cabot Performance Materials, Reading, Pennsylvania, Site, and Opportunity for a Hearing” was published in the **Federal Register** on October 28, 1998 (63 FR 57715). Two parties requested hearings; Jobert Trucking and the City of Reading Redevelopment Authority. Jobert Trucking was denied standing by the court on May 16, 2000 (ADAMS ML003715331) and the Redevelopment Authority request to withdraw hearing petition was granted on October 31, 2000 (ML003765068). Copies of the license amendments approving Cabot's proposed decommissioning plan are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20855-2738. The NRC maintains ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The amendment may be accessed electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* under ADAMS accession number ML072420136. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or have problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by phone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Andrew Persinko, Branch Chief, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-21428 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-8943] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Crow Butte Resources, Inc., Crawford, NE AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Cohen, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-7182; fax number:
(301)415-5369; e-mail: *sjc7@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing a license amendment to Material License No. SUA-1534, issued to Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (the licensee), to authorize an upgrade to the central processing plant
(CPP)and an increase in the CPP flow rate at its main *in situ* leach
(ISL)facility near Crawford, Nebraska. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed amendment is to authorize an upgrade to the CPP and increase the plant flow rate at the licensee's Crawford, Nebraska, facility. Specifically, the licensee is authorized to install a maximum of six ion exchange columns and four ancillary tanks that would support a plant flow rate increase of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The total allowable plant flow rate will increase to 9,000 gpm. On October 17, 2006, the licensee requested that NRC approve the proposed amendment. The staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The staff considered impacts to water resources, public and occupational exposures, socio-economic conditions, endangered and threatened fauna and flora, historic and cultural resources, geology, soils, transportation, and air quality. This licensing action involves installing new equipment within the existing footprint of the CPP. Consequently, no building construction or surface disturbance is required to implement this action. Furthermore, the licensee will not open any new wellfields as a result of this licensing action, beyond those currently addressed by its license. The staff, therefore, does not expect the proposed action to impact geology, surface water, endangered and threatened fauna and flora, transportation, and historic and cultural resources. NRC staff also does not expect significant environmental impacts to groundwater, socio-economic conditions, soil, air quality, and public and occupational exposures. The use of pressurized downflow columns minimizes the releases of radon, thus, no significant impacts to air quality or public and occupational exposures are expected. Also, the licensee maintains procedures for cataloging and addressing system leaks, which minimizes the impacts of such occurrences; therefore, no significant impacts to groundwater and soils are expected. No significant impacts to socio-economic conditions are expected because implementing this action would not result in significant staff increases. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC(s public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Document title Date Accession number Request for License Amendment for Plant Upgrade October 17, 2006 ML063390348 License Amendment for Plant Upgrade, Response to Request for Additional Information April 27, 2007 ML071290026 NRC Inspection Report September 8, 2006 ML062540084 NRC Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Materials License No. SUA-1534 February 1998 ML071520242 Environmental Assessment for the Plant Upgrade October 23, 2007 ML072360287 NRC Request for Additional Information September 8, 2006 ML070540341 If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this *24th* day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen J. Cohen, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-21429 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste And Materials; Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on November 13, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(2)and
(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW&M, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Tuesday, November 13, 2007—8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.* The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW&M activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Dr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m.
(ET)5 days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW&M meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54693). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least 2 working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: October 24, 2007. Antonio F. Dias, Chief, Nuclear Waste & Materials Branch. [FR Doc. E7-21430 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on November 14, 2007, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T-2B1. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of portions that may be closed to discuss AREVA proprietary information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, November 14, 2007—8:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon The Subcommittee will review and comment on the proposed AREVA instability detect and suppress solution codes and methodology specified in the topical reports:
(1)ANP-10262(P), Revision 0, “Enhanced Option III Long Term Stability Solution;” and
(2)BAW-10255(P), Revision 2, “Cycle-specific DIVOM Methodology Using the RAMONA5-FA Code.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, AREVA, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Ms. Zena Abdullahi (Telephone: 301-415-8716) 5 days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 8:45 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least 2 working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: October 25, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-21432 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56701; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-68] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding Complex Orders October 25, 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 June 20, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the CBOE. On October 19, 2007, the CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaces the original filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling of certain complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at ( * http:// www.cboe.org/Legal * ), at the CBOE'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 CBOE Rule 6.53C, “Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,” governs the electronic handling and execution of complex orders by the Exchange's Hybrid System. The purpose of this filing is to allow for the electronic handling and execution of stock-option orders on the Exchange. These are a type of complex order that consist of an option component and a stock component. Stock-option orders are popular with investors ( *e.g.* , buy-writes) and are frequently handled on CBOE. To date, these orders are handled manually and the option component is traded in open outcry by a broker. With the establishment of the CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”), an electronic stock trading facility of CBOE, the Exchange is now positioned to handle and trade stock-option orders electronically, with the stock component execution taking place on CBSX. The Exchange proposes to handle these orders in a manner that is substantially similar to other complex orders handled pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C. Electronic stock-option orders will be accepted by the Hybrid System and auctioned in the Complex Order Auction (“COA”) pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C(d) when the requirements for an auction are met. An unexecuted stock-option order can also be maintained by the system (either in the Complex Order Book (“COB”) or on the PAR workstation), either of which will monitor the marketability of the order, taking into account the CBSX market for the execution of the stock component of the order. There are four differences between the handling of stock-option orders and other complex order types handled pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C. First, as previously mentioned, the stock portion of the stock-option order will be executed on CBSX. All such executions will be consistent with CBSX trading rules, including priority and matching rules. The execution of the stock-option order cannot take place until the desired price of the stock component is achievable on CBSX. The option leg of the stock-option order will not trade ahead of any resting public customer orders on the Hybrid book. This is consistent with existing CBOE Rule 6.45A(b)(ii), which provides that stock-option orders do not have priority over bids/offers in the public customer limit order book. The option leg may be executed in one-cent increments regardless of the minimum increment applicable to the series. For example: a customer enters a buy-write order to buy 100 shares of XYZ (trading around $40) and sell a 45 call with a net price of $39.00. There is a public customer order in the Hybrid book to sell the 45 call for $1. When executing the buy-write against auction responses, the system will not allow the option leg of the transaction to trade at $1 or higher (thereby preserving the resting limit order's priority at that price). An execution could occur where the option leg prints at $0.99 and the stock trade prints at $39.99 (in accordance with CBSX priority rules). This meets the buy-write's limit price (involving a total cost of $3900) and does not violate priority on CBOE or CBSX. Second, the execution of a stock-option order submitted to the COB is slightly different than the priority outlined in CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(ii). More specifically, a stock-option order submitted to the CBOE will trade in the following sequence:
(1)Against other stock-option orders in the COB using public customer priority and then time priority (thus, if there are multiple public customer and broker-dealer stock-option orders resting in COB, the public customer orders will trade first with time priority among them, and then the broker-dealer orders will trade with time priority among them);
(2)against individual orders or quotes on the Exchange ( *i.e.* , the CBSX book and the options Hybrid book), provided the stock-option order can be executed in full (or in a permissible ratio); and
(3)against orders or quotes submitted by Market Participants, as set forth in CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(3). Because a portion of a stock-option order is executed on a different platform (CBSX), it is more practical to execute resting stock-option orders against other stock-option orders received by the system first before scanning for executions against the legs on the CBSX book and the options Hybrid book. The third difference involves the manner in which stock-option orders are executed through the COA. Individual orders and quotes for the various legs of the order will have last priority. Again, this is because it is more practical to execute resting stock-option orders against other stock-option orders received by the system first before scanning for executions against the legs on the CBSX book and the options Hybrid book. For example: the market for XYZ stock on CBSX is $39.94-39.99. The 45 call market on CBOE is $0.95-1.00. A stock-option order is entered to buy 100 shares and sell the 45 call with a net price of $39.00. The stock-option order is auctioned through the COA, but no responses are received (if responses had been received, priority would have been afforded to public customer responses and any resting public customer stock-option orders that were marketable against the auctioned order using time priority). After the system has determined that there are no responses or resting stock-option orders that can trade against the auctioned stock-option order, it will look to the individual leg markets. In this case, the stock-option order will be filled by the system by executing the stock at $39.99 against the CBSX book and the option at $1 against the CBOE book. With respect to the last difference, the N-second group timer shall not be in effect for stock-option orders. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it is designed to facilitate transactions in securities, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that the addition of stock-option orders to the list of complex orders eligible for electronic handling under CBOE Rule 6.53C is a significant enhancement for investors seeking automated handling of stock-option orders. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-68 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-CBOE-2007-68. 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 CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-68 and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21383 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56703; File No. SR-CHX-2007-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rules Relating to the Execution of Odd Lot Market Orders October 25, 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 2, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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 CHX. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide that market odd lot orders would be executed like round lot orders in the Exchange's Matching System ( *i.e.* , executed as if they were subject to Regulation NMS Rule 611 3 ). Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 4 3 17 CFR 242.611. 4 The Exchange has consented to the removal of an extra quotation mark from the current text of Article 20, Rule 5(a) of the CHX Rules. *See* E-mail from Ellen Neely, President and General Counsel, CHX to David Michehl, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on October 23, 2007. Article 20 Operation of Chx Matching System Prevention of Trade-throughs Rule 5.a. An inbound order for at least a round lot is not eligible for execution on the Exchange if its execution would cause an improper trade-through of another ITS market or, when Reg NMS is implemented for a security, if its execution would be improper under Rule 611 (but not including the exception set out in Rule 611(b)(8)) (together an “improper trade-through”[”]). As described in Interpretation and Policy .03, if the execution of all or part of an inbound order for at least a round lot on the Exchange would cause an improper trade-through, that order (or the portion of that order that would cause a trade-through) shall be routed to another appropriate market or, if designated as “do not route,” automatically cancelled; provided, however, that if an undisplayed order is resting in the Matching System and the execution of an inbound round lot order (that is not an IOC or FOK order) against the undisplayed resting order would cause an improper trade-through, the resting order shall be cancelled to the extent necessary to allow the inbound order to be executed or quoted. b. Inbound odd lot *limit* orders and odd lot crosses shall be eligible for execution on the Exchange even if the execution would trade through another market's bid or offer. *Inbound odd lot market orders shall be executed, for purposes of this Rule, as if they were round lot orders and subject to the requirements of paragraph
(a)above.* 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 Under the Exchange's existing rules, odd lot orders execute in the Matching System without regard to the protected quotations of other markets. 5 The Exchange states that this is because such orders are not subject to the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule and can trade through better prices in other markets. 6 Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide that market odd lot orders would execute like round lot orders ( *i.e.* , they would execute as if they were subject to the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule), while odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses would continue to execute through better prices on other markets. 7 5 *See* CHX Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(b). 6 The Exchange states that its handling of the execution of odd lot orders is consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS. *See* Division of Market Regulation: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS, FAQ 7.03 (confirming that Rule 611 does not apply to odd lot orders). 7 The Exchange believes that a participant that submits an odd lot cross seeks to have that order executed at a particular price, without regard to prices in other markets. Similarly, if a participant submits an odd lot limit order, that participant likely only seeks the protection of the order's limit price and does not anticipate that the order would be protected against better prices in other markets. The Exchange believes that this proposal will provide appropriate protections to odd lot market orders, while allowing participants to choose to have odd lot limit orders and odd lot crosses executed at other prices. 8 8 Odd lot market orders that would trade through the protected quotations of other markets would be rejected from the Exchange's Matching System and either routed to another appropriate market or, if designated as ``do not route,'' automatically cancelled. *See* CHX Rules, Article 20, Rule 5(a). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b). The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and protect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by allowing market odd lot orders to be executed like round lot orders in the Exchange's Matching System. 9 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. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CHX-2007-22 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2007-22. 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-CHX-2007-22 and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21384 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56699; File No. SR-ISE-2007-100] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes October 24, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 17, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the ISE. The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 5 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to reflect the expiration of fee waivers related to foreign currency options traded on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at *http://www.ise.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 ISE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the ISE Schedule of Fees to reflect the expiration of fee waivers related to foreign currency options traded on the Exchange, referred to in the Schedule of Fees as “FX options.” The Exchange adopted certain fee waivers related to FX options on April 17, 2007, 5 which is the day the Exchange began trading in FX options. 6 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55704 (May 3, 2007), 72 FR 26663 (May 10, 2007). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55575 (April 3, 2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007) (order approving the listing and trading of Foreign Currency Options). In order to promote trading in FX options, for a three month period beginning April 17, 2007, the Exchange waived
(1)all transaction fees applicable to members that trade in FX options,
(2)the monthly access fee applicable to ISE market makers, and
(3)one API for each class of market maker in FX options. These fee waivers expired on October 17, 2007. The Exchange thus proposes to remove language related to these fee waivers from its Schedule of Fees. 7 7 The Exchange will, however, keep certain exemptions related to foreign currency options fees in place:
(1)FXPMMs will continue to be exempt from the Minimum Fee applicable to Primary Market Makers, and
(2)FXPMMs and FXCMMs will continue to be exempt from the Inactivity Fee applicable to Primary Market Makers and Competitive Market Makers. *See supra* , Note 5 (citing to Release No. 34-55704). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act, 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 9 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 11 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-ISE-2007-100 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-100. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-100 and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21386 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56700; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-78] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Article FOURTH of its Restated Certificate of Incorporation October 24, 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 5, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder. 4 The Exchange has designated this proposal as one concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange, 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)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Phlx proposes to amend its Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate”) by modifying the definition of “Related Persons” in Article FOURTH. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.html* , 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 As discussed further below, the Exchange represents that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the definition of “Related Persons” as it appears in Article FOURTH of the Certificate to remove unnecessary burdens on the flexibility of the Exchange and its shareholders in effecting certain types of lawful fundamental transactions. The Exchange believes that this should facilitate appropriate deliberation, discussion, and activities by the shareholders of the Exchange in relation to fundamental transactions and other appropriate matters, without compromising the policies underlying the concentration limits on voting and ownership of Common Stock of the Exchange contained in Article FOURTH of the Certificate. Article FOURTH of the Certificate imposes limitations on ownership and voting by holders of Phlx's Common Stock. 5 For purposes of applying these limitations, the holdings of a Phlx shareholder are combined with those of the shareholder's “Related Persons.” Clause (b)(iii)(B) of Article FOURTH provides, in pertinent part, that: 5 The concentration limits in the Certificate limit any person, either alone or together with its Related Person, to
(i)owning 40% of the outstanding Common Stock of the Exchange (20% in the case of Exchange members), and
(ii)exercising voting rights in respect of more than 20% of the Common Stock. A waiver by the Board of Governors, subject to Commission approval, is permitted in certain cases. *See* Article FOURTH (b)(iii) and (v). * * * “Related Persons” shall mean
(1)with respect to any Person, 6 all “affiliates” and “associates” of such Person (as such terms are defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)),
(2)with respect to any natural person constituting a “member” (as such term is defined in the Exchange Act) of the Corporation, any broker or dealer with which such member is associated and
(3)any two or more Persons that have any agreement, arrangement or understanding (whether or not in writing) to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of shares of Common Stock. (Footnote added). 6 In Article FOURTH (a)(iv), ``Person'' is defined as an individual, partnership (general or limited), joint-stock company, corporation, limited liability company, trust or unincorporated organization, and a government or agency or political subdivision thereof. The Exchange notes that ownership and voting concentration limits are intended to ensure that the Exchange's management is not beset with conflicts of interest for the benefit of a small number of individuals or entities such that the Exchange cannot meet the statutory standards for national securities exchanges set forth in Sections 6 7 and 19 8 of the Act. 9 The Exchange believes that the “Related Persons” definition is intended to keep members and other persons from evading the numerical limits of holding shares in multiple affiliates or by having secret agreements with other shareholders whereby their “true” level of ownership, control, or voting power indirectly exceeds the permitted percentage limits. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18, 2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004) (proposed SRO governance rulemaking). The organizational documents of other national securities exchanges contain similar concentration limits. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45803 (April 23, 2002), 67 FR 21306 (April 30, 2002) (SR-ISE-2002-01) (approving the restructuring of International Securities Exchange, Inc. from a limited liability company to a corporation); and 49718 (May 17, 2004), 69 FR 29611 (May 24, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-08) (approving the demutualization of the former Pacific Exchange, Inc.). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49067 (January 13, 2004), 64 FR 2761 (January 21, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-19) (approving the operating agreement of the Boston Options Exchange); and 54399 (September 1, 2006), 71 FR 53728 (September 12, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-45) (granting accelerated approval of the establishment of ISE Stock Exchange, LLC as a facility of the International Securities Exchange, Inc.). Phlx is of the view that the policy underlying these restrictions was not intended to inhibit the Exchange or shareholders from effecting certain kinds of fundamental, and otherwise lawful, transactions, such as effecting an initial public offering or a merger or from entering into agreements or arrangements that are necessary or directly related to the execution of such transactions. 10 10 Indeed, such fundamental transactions have been consummated, and are currently contemplated, by other national securities exchanges. In these cases, charter provisions of such exchanges similar to those in Article FOURTH of the Certificate were deleted or amended to accommodate specific transactions, such as when the Pacific Exchange was acquired by Archipelago Holdings. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release 50170 (August 9, 2004), 69 FR 50419 (August 16, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-56); *see also* International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, Item 5.02 (Accession Number 1193125-7-96585 (April 30, 2007)). Moreover, Phlx does not believe that the concentration limits or the “Related Persons” definition were intended to have the effect of limiting discussions among shareholders of any sort as they relate to the business of the Exchange or other matters of concern to the shareholders. In order to structure a fundamental transaction in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all parties, management and shareholders need the freedom to discuss various aspects of the transaction without the threat of these initial discussions triggering sub-clause
(3)of the “Related Person” definition, thereby potentially causing the shareholders who are party to such discussions to exceed their permitted ownership and/or voting limits. The proposed amendment is intended to
(i)provide that certain ordinary agreements, arrangements or understandings in connection with potential fundamental transactions of the type described above are expressly permitted, and
(ii)negate any inference that discussions or other communications among shareholders affecting the interests of the shareholders or the Exchange, as they relate to such transactions or certain other matters (that are not otherwise exempted under the definition), would cause shareholders to be regarded as “Related Persons.” a. Exempted Matters The proposed amendment would exclude from the scope of the “Related Persons” definition any agreement, arrangement, or understanding pertaining to any of the following: A merger, sale, acquisition, or other corporate affiliation of or by the Exchange or any subsidiary; the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Exchange; the issuance, offer, or sale by the Exchange and/or one or more shareholders (whether in one or more public or private transactions) of Common Stock of the Exchange. The purpose of this language is to provide that certain types of ordinary and customary agreements and arrangements in connection with potential fundamental transactions, such as those described above, do not cause such shareholders to be “Related Persons.” These would include, for example, underwriting agreements relating to an initial public offering, merger agreements, asset purchase agreements, lock-up and standstill agreements, and voting agreements in connection with an acquisition. The Exchange believes that if these types of agreements cannot be entered into without causing existing shareholders to be regarded as “Related Persons” (and thereby causing the aggregation of their shareholdings to prohibited levels), then Phlx will be severely hampered in its ability to proceed to structure and negotiate an otherwise lawful, fundamental transaction of the type described above. However, the proposal is intended to narrowly define certain types of transactions about which agreements, arrangements, and understandings may be concluded without causing the shareholders that are party thereto to be regarded as “Related Persons.” The Phlx believes that the legitimate policy concerns that are safeguarded by the current voting and ownership limitations in the Exchange's Certificate continue to be addressed, because Article FOURTH would still treat as “Related Persons,” persons who are parties to agreements that are formed for any reason that is outside of the defined list of exempted transactions and certain related preparatory agreements (see discussion below). 11 11 Of course, if a fundamental transaction were to proceed, the concentration limits and related procedures set forth in Article FOURTH would apply to any shareholder or prospective shareholder of the Exchange, unless the Certificate is further amended or the Exchange is not the surviving entity in the case of a merger. In these latter cases, any proposed amendment or any proposed new or successor Certificate would need to be filed with the Commission. *See* Sections 3(a)(27) (defining “rules of an exchange” to include the certificate of incorporation or “instruments corresponding to the foregoing”) and 19(b) (specifying procedures pertaining to filing and approval of self-regulatory organizations' rules and proposed rule changes) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27) and 78s(b)(1). Thus, the protections afforded by the concentration limits would not be diluted in the case of a fundamental transaction. b. Certain Preparatory Activities The proposal will also exempt from the “Related Persons” definition certain agreements, arrangements, or understandings that relate to preparations for effecting fundamental transactions, including the preparation, filing with the Commission, or dissemination of a registration, proxy, or information statement in respect of any of the matters or transactions described in the Exempted Matters section above and any proposal or plan to do any of the foregoing, and any step that is required for, or specifically and directly related thereto. The above language is intended to cover activities relating to the preparations, plans, and/or steps required for, or specifically and directly related to, the types of fundamental transactions described above. This clause expands the scope of activities that are proposed to be permitted without triggering the “Related Persons” definition. However, the proposal clearly defines the scope of activities that can be engaged in and cannot serve as a subterfuge for members or affiliates or other shareholders to join together to use their ownership or voting rights to attempt to manage the day-to-day operations of the Exchange to their benefit and disadvantage of others or to deny access to the facilities of the Exchange. c. Discussions of Other Communications This proposed amendment is also intended to clarify that certain communications among shareholders affecting the interests of the shareholders or the Exchange (other than those relating to transactions or activities that are otherwise exempted under the proposal) will not be presumed to constitute an “agreement, arrangement, or understanding . . . to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of shares of Common Stock.” The Exchange believes that Article FOURTH, as currently drafted, could result in an inappropriate chilling effect on legitimate discussions or other communications that do not implicate any of the Commission's concerns underlying the concentration limits and the “Related Persons” definition, as discussed above. The proposal provides that the following shall not create a presumption or inference that persons have an agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purposes of determining “Related Persons,” as defined by Article FOURTH:
(i)Communications by or among any persons (or their officers, agents or representatives) for the purpose of understanding, considering, or communicating the advisability, desirability, or feasibility of any matter concerning the interests of the Exchange or its shareholders, or
(ii)the fact that two or more persons (or their officers, agents or representatives) may have expressed or communicated common views as to the advisability, desirability or feasibility of any matter concerning the interests of the Exchange or its shareholders (including, in either such case, by way of voting or otherwise acting as Governors, 12 members of standing or other committees or shareholders). 12 *See* Phlx By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(m). By listing non-exclusive examples of permitted discussions and other communications, the Exchange hopes to clarify that certain customary and appropriate conversations and other communications between and among shareholders will not cause the shareholders to be considered “Related Persons” and result in the aggregation of their shares or voting rights in a way that would improperly restrict legitimate communication among shareholders. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by modifying Phlx's Certificate to remove unnecessary burdens on the flexibility of the Exchange and its shareholders in effecting certain types of lawful fundamental transactions. The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act 15 in that it should facilitate appropriate deliberation, discussion, and activities by the shareholders of the Exchange in relation to fundamental transactions and other appropriate matters, without compromising the policies underlying the concentration limits on voting and ownership of Common Stock of the Exchange contained in Article FOURTH of the Certificate. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). 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 either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change is concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2007-78 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-78. 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-2007-78 and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21382 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11079 and # 11080] California Disaster # CA-00074 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-1731-DR), dated 10/24/2007. *Incident:* Wildfires. *Incident Period:* 10/21/2007 and continuing. DATES: *Effective Date:* 10/24/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 12/24/2007. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/24/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/24/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* California: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, San Luis Obispo. Arizona: La paz, Mohave. Nevada: Clark. The Interest Rates are: Percent For Physical Damage: Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.875 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.937 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 For Economic Injury: Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 110795 and for economic injury is 110800. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21412 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11004 and # 11005] Minnesota Disaster Number MN-00011 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 4. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1717-DR), dated 08/23/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 08/18/2007 through 08/31/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 10/22/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/14/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 05/23/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota, dated 08/23/2007 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 11/14/2007. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21414 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11021 and #11022] New York Disaster Number NY-00053 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1724-DR), dated 08/31/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornado *Incident Period:* 08/08/2007. *Dates: Effective Date:* 10/22/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/16/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/02/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of New York, dated 08/31/2007 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 11/16/2007. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-21408 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of Title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), National Small Business Development Centers Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via conference call on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and finalize the recorded minutes from the State Director's Town Hall Meeting that was held at the Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) Annual Conference in Denver, Colorado on September 16-20, 2007. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone
(202)619-1612 or fax
(202)481-0134. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21409 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent to Waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is considering granting a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing. According to the request, no small business manufacturers supply these classes of products to the Federal government. If granted, the waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: Comments and source information must be submitted November 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and source information to Pamela M. Fenderson, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT: Pamela M. Fenderson, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)205-7408; by Fax at
(202)481-4783; or by e-mail at *Pamela.Fenderson@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on a six digit coding system. The coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334517 product number (6525). The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waivers of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of NAICS code within 15 days after date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Arthur E. Collins, Jr., Director for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E7-21407 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2007-41] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATE: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before November 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-27018 using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas
(202)267-7626 or Frances Shaver
(202)267-9681, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2007-27018. *Petitioner:* NJI, Inc. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR 135.225(f) Description of Relief Sought: To allow NJI to make instrument flight rules takeoffs from foreign and military airports when the visibility is less than 1 statute-mile or make an instrument approach when the visibility is less than 1/2 mile. [FR Doc. E7-21426 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Early Scoping Notice for an Alternatives Analysis of Proposed Transit Improvements in the Regional Connector Transit Corridor of Los Angeles, CA AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Early Scoping Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issue this early scoping notice to advise other agencies and the public that they intend to explore, in the context of the Council on Environmental Quality's early scoping process, alternative means of improving transit capacity and service in and through the central core of Los Angeles, California. The early scoping process is part of a planning Alternatives Analysis
(AA)required by 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 5309 that will lead to the selection of the alternatives that will be subject to the appropriate environmental process. Early scoping meetings have been planned and are announced below. The proposed Regional Connector would provide a link connecting several light rail service lines in operation or in construction (i.e., the Metro Gold Line to Pasadena, the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Metro Blue Line, and the Metro Expo Line). This connection would broaden and improve the region's public transit, mobility, and accessibility. The project study area within which various alternatives will be considered for the Regional Connector is situated in downtown Los Angeles, generally encompassing the area between the 101 Freeway on the north, 9th Street/Los Angeles Street and 7th Street on south, the 110 Freeway on the west, and Alameda Street on the east. After selection of the alternatives by the LACMTA Board, the alternatives will then be the subject of the appropriate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the alternatives have significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS), combined with a California environmental impact report
(EIR)would be initiated with a Notice of Intent
(NOI)in the **Federal Register** and distribution of a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)required under CEQA and final public and agency scoping of the EIS/EIR. In particular, the purpose and need for the project, the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS/EIR, the environmental and community impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be used, would be subject to public and interagency review and comment, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139 and CEQA. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the planning Alternatives Analysis, including the alternatives to be considered and the impacts to be assessed, should be sent to LACMTA at the address below by November 21, 2007. See ADDRESSES below for the address to which written public comments may be sent. Early scoping meetings to accept public comments on the scope of the Alternatives Analysis will be held on the following dates: • Tuesday, November 6, 2007, from 11:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Central Library, Meeting Room A, 630 W. 5th St., Los Angeles, CA 90071. • Wednesday, November 7, 2007, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Japanese American National Museum, 369 East First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The draft purpose and need for the project and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at these meetings. The buildings and facilities used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Ms. Susan Gilmore, LACMTA at 213-922-7287 or *Gilmores@metro.net* . Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and are also available on the LACMTA Web site at *http://www.metro.net.* Hard copies of the scoping materials are available from Ms. Susan Gilmore, LACMTA at 213-922-7287 or *Gilmores@metro.net.* An interagency scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. at LACMTA, One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor, Board Overflow Room, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Representatives of Native American tribal governments and of all Federal, State, and local agencies that may have an interest in any aspect of the project will be invited by phone letter, or e-mail. It should be noted that, in addition to the early scoping meetings described herein, the agency and scoping meetings required under NEPA and CEQA to identify the nature and scope of environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIS/EIR will be held following issuance of the NOI and NOP. The dates and locations for the EIR/EIS scoping meetings will be announced at that time and will be included in the NOI and NOP, which will be distributed in the same manner as this Early Scoping Notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Early Scoping Notice should be sent to Ms. Dolores Roybal Saltarelli, AICP, Project Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012, phone 213-922-3024, e-mail *roybald@metro.net* . The locations of the early scoping meetings are given above under DATES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ray Tellis, Team Leader, Los Angeles Metropolitan Office, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone 213-202-3950, e-mail *ray.tellis@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Early Scoping The FTA and LACMTA invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American tribes to comment on the scope of alternatives formulation, including the purpose and need for transit improvements in the corridor, the alternatives to be considered, and the types of impacts to be further evaluated in the planning Alternatives Analysis. Comments at this time should focus on the purpose and need for transit improvements in the corridor; alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives; and the identification of any significant social, economic, or environmental issues that should be considered in defining a range of alternatives. Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose of this project is to improve the region's public transit service and mobility. The project would provide a link connecting the light rail service of the Metro Gold Line to Pasadena, the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Metro Blue Line and the Metro Expo Line. This link will serve communities across the region, allowing greater accessibility while serving a resurgent downtown Los Angeles. There is a need for transportation improvements within this study area. Originally planned as a northern extension of the Metro Blue Line to Pasadena, the project was deferred due to limited resources. Initial studies were developed and completed in 1994 and are available from LACMTA at One Gateway Plaza, Records Management, Los Angeles, CA 90012. At that time, only the Metro Blue Line and a short segment of the Metro Red Line Subway were in construction or in operation in downtown Los Angeles. By 2007, the Metro rail system had grown substantially, with lines in operation or under construction extending over 60 miles from downtown Los Angeles. The Metro Red Line from 7th Street Metro Center to Union Station currently serves as an interim connection between the Metro Gold Line and Metro Blue Line. With continued expansion and success of the Metro fixed guide-way system, considerations supporting the project's needs are as follows: • Metro's increased ridership due to an expanding system will create capacity issues on the Metro Red Line Segment between the Metro Gold Line and the Metro Blue Line. • Improved travel times through the downtown core will attract more riders on the transit system throughout the region. • The City of Los Angeles has developed a “Centers Concept” Land Use Policy which is transit based. • There is existing, significant, dense, private and public developments within the study area that are regional activity centers and destinations including City Hall, Disney Hall, Caltrans Headquarters, MOCA, Federal Courts, County Courts, etc.. • Downtown Los Angeles is in the midst of a resurgence that includes the development of dense residential developments in the form of mid-high rise buildings, new entertainment districts including LA Live and the Grand Avenue Plan, and conversion of older underutilized areas into new commercial and residential uses, all in construction within the study area. • Local planning guidelines and policies are supportive of sustainable public transportation that provides for a walkable, livable City of Los Angeles. • The City of Los Angeles will experience a significant overall increase in population and job growth over the next 20 years. • Increased congestion through downtown Los Angeles on the highway network has created support for improved high-capacity transit alternatives. • Continued expansion of the transit system is creating a demand for increased capacity. • Improved connectivity of a transit system has significant positive impacts on ridership. • Improved connectivity of the transit system will improve operations. Comments on the preliminary purpose and need statements for the proposed project are requested from the public and participating agencies. Comments will be given full consideration. Alternatives A broad range of alternatives are being considered in the AA process, including various transit technologies, corridor alignments, configurations and operations, station types and locations, and Transportation Systems Management
(TSM)improvements. In addition to these various types of actions, the implications of taking no action (i.e., the “no build” alternative) will be considered in the analysis. The following summarizes the general types of alternatives to be considered in the analysis, understanding that a broad variety of possible alternatives, and combinations thereof, will be initially identified and then undergo evaluation to define the alternatives for advancement to the environmental process. Further description of this process is provided below under FTA Procedures. Alternative Technologies could include proven transportation systems based such as light rail, bus rapid transit, people movers, or monorail. Alignment Alternatives include fixed guide-way, street running at-grade systems, aerial and underground configurations, center or side of street operations, and at-grade, off street alignments. Running north to south, alignments could include the use of some combination of Alameda Street, Los Angeles St., Central Avenue, San Pedro St., Main St., Spring St., Broadway, Hill St., Olive St., Grand Avenue, Hope St., Flower St., Figueroa St. Running east to west, alignments could include some combination of Aliso St., Temple St., 1st St., 2nd St., 3rd St., 4th St., 5th St., 6th St., and 7th St. Station Alternatives include variations in the number, interval distance, location, design including whether above ground or below ground and whether stand-alone or integrated as part of another use, and operational characteristics. No Build Alternative includes only “committed” improvements—in the current Metro Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2030 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan—together with minor transit service expansions and/or adjustments that reflect a continuation of existing service policies. For purposes of the Alternatives Analysis, the major fixed guideway investments under study for the Exposition Transit Corridor Phase 2 and Crenshaw Transit Corridor projects would not be included in the Future No-Build Alternative. The completion of the Metro Rapid Bus Program would be included as well as possible additional feeder bus networks to serve the region's major activity centers. Transportation System Management
(TSM)Alternative enhances the No Build Alternative and emphasizes transportation system upgrades such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, contra-flow lanes for buses and High Occupancy Vehicles
(HOVs)on freeways, special bus ramps on freeways, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. In addition to the alternatives described above, other alternatives identified through the early scoping process will be considered for potential inclusion in the Alternatives Analysis. Alternative modes, vertical or horizontal alignments, or station locations may emerge from the early scoping process. FTA Procedures Early scoping is an optional element of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)process that is particularly useful in situations where, as here, a proposed action (the locally preferred alternative) has not been identified and alternative modes and major alignment variations are under consideration in a broadly-defined corridor. While NEPA scoping normally follows issuance of a notice of intent, which describes the proposed action, it “may be initiated earlier, as long as there is appropriate public notice and enough information available on the proposal so that the public and relevant agencies can participate effectively.” See the Council on Environmental Quality's “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,” 46 FR 18026, 18030 (1981). In this case, the available information is more than adequate to permit the public and relevant agencies to participate effectively in early scoping and the planning Alternatives Analysis. LACMTA may seek New Starts funding for the proposed project under 49 U.S.C. § 5309 and will, therefore, be subject to New Starts regulation (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 611). The New Starts regulation requires a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative by LACMTA and the inclusion of the locally preferred alternative in the long-range transportation plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments. The planning Alternatives Analysis will examine alignments, technologies, station locations, costs, funding, ridership, economic development, land use, engineering feasibility, and environmental factors in the corridor. The New Starts regulation also requires the submission of certain project-justification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering, and this information is normally developed during the Alternatives Analysis. After a reduction of alternatives identified in the AA process, if preparation of an environmental impact statement is warranted, an NOI will be published in the **Federal Register** and the scoping of the EIS/EIR will be completed by soliciting and considering comments on the purpose and need for the proposed action, the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS/EIR, and the potentially significant environmental and community impacts to be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Concurrent with publication of the NOI pursuant to NEPA, an NOP will be distributed pursuant to CEQA. In conjunction with this final scoping of the EIS/EIR and consistent with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139 and CEQA, invitations will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies that may have an interest in this matter to be participating agencies. A plan for coordinating public and agency participation in the environmental review process and for commenting on the issues under consideration at various milestones of the process will be prepared and posted on the LACMTA Web site at *http://www.metro.net/regionalconnector.* Issued on: October 25, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21424 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Early Scoping Notice for an Alternatives Analysis of Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor of Los Angeles, CA AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Early Scoping Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) issue this early scoping notice to advise other agencies and the public that they intend to explore, in the context of the Council on Environmental Quality's early scoping process, alternative means of improving transit capacity and service in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor of Los Angeles, California. The early scoping process is part of a planning Alternatives Analysis
(AA)required by Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 5309, that will lead to the selection of the proposed action and alternatives that will be subject to the appropriate environmental process. Early scoping meetings have been planned and are announced below. The Eastside Extensive Phase II Transit Corridor is east-west oriented and includes all or portions of the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera, Monterey Park, Industry, Downey, Whittier, Commerce, Rosemead, South El Monte, South San Gabriel, Sante Fe Springs, Bell as well as unincorporated portions of the County of Los Angeles. The study area generally extends from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, north to the Interstate 10 freeway, east to approximately three miles east of the State Route 605, and south to Interstate 5 freeway. The Alternatives Analysis will study the extension of high capacity transit service from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension to approximately 3 miles east of the State Route 605. The conclusion of the planning Alternatives Analysis is expected to be the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA)by the LACMTA and the Southern California Association of Governments, which is the official metropolitan planning organization for Los Angeles. The LPA will then be the “proposed action” that is subject to an appropriate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If the selected LPA would have significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS), combined with a California environmental impact report
(EIR)would be initiated with a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register and distribution of a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public and agency scoping of the EIS/EIR would be conducted at that time. In particular, the purpose and need for the project, the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS/EIR, the environmental and community impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be used, would be subject to public and interagency review and comment, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139 and CEQA. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the planning Alternatives Analysis, including the alternatives to be considered, should be sent to LACMTA at the address below by November 30, 2007. See ADDRESS below for the address to which written public comments may be sent. Early scoping meetings to accept public comments on the scope of the planning Alternatives Analysis will be held on the following dates: • Thursday, November 8, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Palm Park, 5703 Palm Avenue, Whittier, CA 90601. • Saturday, November 10, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Senior Center at City Park, 115 South Taylor Avenue, Montebello, CA 90640. • Wednesday, November 14, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Potrero Heights Elementary School, 8026 East Hill Drive, Rosemead, CA 91770. • Thursday, November 15, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. North Park Middle School/Cafeteria, 4450 Durfee Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA 90660. The draft purpose and need for the project and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at these meetings. The buildings and facilities used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Mr. David Monks, LACMTA at 213 922-7456 or *Monksd@metro.net.* Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and are also available on the LACMTA Web site at *http://www.metro.net/eastside.* Hard copies of the scoping materials are available from Mr. David Monks, LACMTA at 213 922-7456 or *Monksd@metro.net.* An interagency scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, November 8, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at LACMTA, One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Board Overflow Room, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Representatives of Native American tribal governments and of all Federal, State, and local agencies that may have an interest in any aspect of the project will be invited by phone, letter, or e-mail. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Early Scoping Notice should be sent to Ms. Kimberly Yu, Project Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012, phone 213-922-7910, e-mail *yuki@metro.net.* The locations of the early scoping meetings are given above under DATES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ray Tellis, Team Leader, Los Angeles Metropolitan Office, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone 213-202-3950, e-mail *ray.tellis@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Early Scoping The FTA and LACMTA invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American tribes to comment on the scope of the planning Alternatives Analysis, including the purpose and need for transit improvements in the corridor, the alternatives transit modes and alignments to be considered, and the types of impacts to be evaluated. Comments at this time should focus on the purpose and need for transit improvements in the corridor; alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives; and the identification of any significant social, economic, or environmental issues that should be considered in developing the alternatives. Purpose and Need for Action The project purpose is to improve public transit service and mobility in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor. The project would provide the study area an improved fixed-guideway east-west transit service from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension currently under construction, to cities further east of the City of Los Angeles. Possible eastern extensions from the Metro Gold Line would generally continue east parallel to or along State Route 60, Beverly Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard or Whittier Boulevard. The overall goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor by extending the benefits of the existing Metro Gold Line and bus investments beyond the current terminus. Mobility problems and potential improvements for this corridor have been well documented in many studies that are available from Metro's Record's Management Department including numerous Metro Red Line planning studies, Eastside Transit Corridor Studies: Re-Evaluation Major Investment Study (2000), Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG)planning studies, the Metro Rapid Demonstration Project (2000), and in the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (2004). Additional considerations supporting the project's need include: • The concentration of activity centers and destinations in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • Increasing traffic congestion on the highway network throughout the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor, which has led to public and political support for a high-capacity transit alternative to the automobile; • The County General Plan of the County of Los Angeles which is transit-supportive; • The existing concentration of transit supportive land uses in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • The high population and employment densities in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • Local redevelopment plans that are highly support of, and dependent on, high capacity transit services in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • The existing high ridership levels on bus lines in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • Significant transit dependent population in the Eastside Extension Phase II Transit Corridor; • Forecasts of significant future population and employment growth in the Eastside Extension Phase II Corridor; • Existing and future travel demand patterns that demonstrate a strong and growing demand for high-capacity transit in the Eastside Extension Phase II Corridor; • Emerging travel patterns associated with a job-rich study area that has led to significant westbound congestion during the morning rush hours and corresponding eastbound congestion during the evening rush hours; and • Local policy directed toward travel demand management and transit solutions rather than the expansion of the street and highway network. Alternatives The Eastside Extension Phase II Corridor Study proposes to extend transit from the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension to cities east of Los Angeles. Historically two routes have been previously considered for this extension; to the City of Whittier via Atlantic and Whittier Boulevards and the City of Whittier via Beverly Boulevard, Paramount Boulevard and Whittier Boulevard. Light rail transit, the transit mode that is currently used in the Metro Gold Line, is being considered. It normally follows an at-grade configuration although underground and aerial configurations may also be considered in some locations. Other transit modes, including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), high speed trolley and any other reliable, cost-effective forms of fixed guideway transit may also be considered. Proposed station sites (along two alternative alignments) include Beverly/Atlantic, Beverly/Gerhart, Beverly/Garfield, Beverly/Wilcox, Beverly/Montebello, Beverly/4th, Whittier/Gerhart, Whittier/Garfield, Whittier/Wilcox, Whittier/Montebello, Whittier/Rosemead, Whittier/Passons, Whittier/Norwalk, Whittier/Arizona, Whittier/Atlantic, and Beverly/Arizona. Future No-Build Alternative—The study will consider the transportation and environmental effects if no new major transit investments beyond those that have already been planned are implemented in this corridor. This alternative will include the highway and transit projects in the current Metro Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2030 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. For purposes of the planning Alternatives Analysis, the major fixed guideway investments under study for the Exposition Transit Corridor Phase 2 and Crenshaw Transit Corridor projects would not be included in the Future No-Build Alternative. The completion of the Metro Rapid Bus Program would be included as well as possible additional feeder bus networks to serve the region's major activity centers. Transportation System Management Alternative (TSM)—The study will consider the effects of modest improvements in the highway and transit systems beyond those in the Future No-Build Alternative. The TSM Alternative would evaluate low-cost enhancements to the Future No-Build Alternative and would emphasize transportation system upgrades, such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, expanded park-and-ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. In addition to the alternatives described above, other reasonable alternatives identified through the early scoping process will be considered for potential inclusion in the planning Alternatives Analysis. Alternative modes, vertical or horizontal alignments, or station locations may emerge from the early scoping process. FTA Procedures Early scoping is an optional element of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)process that is particularly useful in situations where, as here, a proposed action (the locally preferred alternative) has not been identified and alternative modes and major alignment variations are under consideration in a broadly-defined corridor. While NEPA scoping normally follows issuance of a notice of intent, which describes the proposed action, it “may be initiated earlier, as long as there is appropriate public notice and enough information available on the proposal so that the public and relevant agencies can participate effectively.” See the Council on Environmental Quality's ”“Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,” 46FR 18026, 18030 (1981). In this case, the available information is more than adequate to permit the public and relevant agencies to participate effectively in early scoping and the planning Alternatives Analysis. LACMTA may seek New Starts funding for the proposed project under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and will, therefore, be subject to New Starts regulation (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 611). The New Starts regulation requires a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative by LACMTA and the inclusion of the locally preferred alternative in the long-range transportation plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments. The planning Alternatives Analysis will examine alignments, technologies, station locations, costs, funding, ridership, economic development, land use, engineering feasibility, and environmental factors in the corridor. The New Starts regulation also requires the submission of certain project-justification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering. After the identification of a proposed action at the conclusion of the planning Alternatives Analysis, if preparation of an environmental impact statement is warranted, a Notice of Intent
(NOI)will be published in the **Federal Register** and the scoping of the EIS/EIR will be continued by soliciting and considering comments on the results of the planning Alternatives Analysis, the purpose and need for the proposed action, the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS/EIR, and the potentially significant environmental and community impacts to be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Concurrent will publication of the NOI pursuant to NEPA, an NOP will be distributed pursuant to CEQA. In conjunction with this final scoping of the EIS/EIR and consistent with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139 and CEQA, invitations will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies that may have an interest in this matter to be participating agencies. A plan for coordinating public and agency participation in the environmental review process and for commenting on the issues under consideration at various milestones of the process will be prepared and posted on the LACMTA Web site at *http://www.metro.net/eastsidephase2.* Issued on: October 25, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration. [FR Doc. 07-5406 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
11 references not yet in our index
  • 5 CFR 1320.10
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 29 CFR 90.18
  • 29 CFR 90.11(c)(7)
  • Pub. L. 100-418
  • 29 CFR 90.18(c)
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 95-541
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 5 USC 78s(b)(1)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reinstatement—Crime Mapping Survey
C.F.R.§ 57.5040
C.F.R.§ 57.5037
U.S.C.§ 2273
C.F.R.§ 50.80
U.S.C.§ 2201
U.S.C.§ 552b
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 552
Cite5 CFR 1320.10
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite29 CFR 90.18
Cites 30 · 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.