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 · 2007-11-13 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of availability

26,575 words·~121 min read·/register/2007/11/13/07-5633

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271; License No. DPR-28] Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated August 27, 2007, the New England Coalition (NEC or the petitioner) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take action with regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee).
The NEC petition requested that NRC promptly restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety that is now degraded by the failure of the licensee and its employees to report adverse conditions leading to a reduction in plant safety margins at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), or otherwise to order a derate or shutdown of Vermont Yankee until it can be determined to what extent Vermont Yankee is being operated in an unanalyzed condition.
Specifically, the petition requested the following actions:
(1)NRC completion of a Diagnostic Evaluation Team examination or Independent Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition of non-conformances, reportable items, hazards to safety, and the root causes thereof;
(2)NRC completion of a safety culture assessment to determine why worker safety concerns were not previously reported and why assessments of safety culture under the Reactor Oversight Process failed to capture the fact or reasons that safety concerns have gone unreported;
(3)derate Vermont Yankee to 50% of licensed thermal power with a mandatory hold at 50% until a thorough and detailed structural and performance analysis of the cooling towers, including the alternate cooling system, has been completed by the licensee; reviewed and approved by NRC; and until the above steps
(1)and
(2)have been completed; and
(4)NRC investigation and determination of whether or not similar non-conforming conditions and causes exist at other Entergy-run nuclear power plants. As a basis for the request, the petition cited problems related to the inadequate performance of Vermont Yankee Inservice Inspection, Maintenance, Engineering, and Quality Assurance leading to a cooling tower cell collapse coupled with the employees' assertion of degrading plant conditions inimical to public health. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Mr. Raymond Shadis, in his capacity as the petitioner's Staff Technical Advisor, participated in two telephone conference calls with the NRC's Petition Review Board
(PRB)on September 12, 2007, and October 3, 2007, to discuss the petition and provide any additional explanation in light of the PRB's initial recommendation. The results of those discussions were considered in the PRB's determination regarding the petitioner's request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. The PRB confirmed its initial recommendation to reject action items (1), (2), and (4), which are the diagnostic evaluation team examination, safety culture assessment, and the NRC investigation at other Entergy facilities. These action items were rejected for review under the 2.206 process because these actions are not enforcement-related. However, the PRB has determined that the petition meets the criteria for review in Management Directive 8.11 with respect to a portion of action item (3). Specifically, the PRB found that the facts presented in the petition related to the cooling tower cell collapse in action
(3)were credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry. A copy of the petition and supplement and the transcripts of the telephone conference calls are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and from the NRC's 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* (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072420194, ML072780363, ML072610466, and ML07830584). 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 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J. T. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-22093 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-8905] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan License Amendment; Rio Algom Mining LLC, Ambrosia Lake, NM AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McLaughlin, Project Manager, Materials Decommissioning 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. Telephone:
(301)415-5869; fax number:
(301)415-5369; e-mail: *tgm@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)proposes to issue a license amendment of Source Materials License No. SUA-1473 held by Rio Algom Mining LLC (Rio Algom/the licensee), to approve a Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan for its uranium mill tailings site in Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)for this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, and has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. The Ambrosia Lake site is in the Ambrosia Lake mining district of New Mexico, 25 miles north of Grants, New Mexico. Rio Algom began processing ore in 1958, and processed approximately 33 million tons of ore through 1985. The site continued to be an active uranium production facility through December 2002. Site reclamation activities commenced in 1989 with some work on the top surface of the largest tailings cell. There are three tailings/waste cells situated adjacent to each other at the Rio Algom site: The large Tailings Cell 1, Tailings Cell 2 to the west of Cell 1, and a small Cell 3 east of Cell 1 that was used to dispose of contaminated windblown material. Reclamation of Cell 1 is complete, and cover construction of Cells 2 and 3 is still ongoing. Reclamation activities have at times included unlined evaporation pond residue excavation and disposal, contaminated windblown soil cleanup, tailings impoundment reclamation, surface water erosion protection feature construction, and mill building demolition. The licensee has indicated that this proposed cell expansion design is one component of the overall site reclamation plan. The licensee previously has addressed, and NRC has approved, the remaining site-wide reclamation plan elements through separate licensing actions, including the original reclamation plan for Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 (approved in September 1990), mill demolition, relocation of lined evaporation pond sediments, soil decommissioning plan, and groundwater remediation. II. EA Summary In April 2005, Rio Algom sent the NRC a Reclamation Plan for disposal of evaporation pond sediments for its Ambrosia Lake uranium mill tailings facility. In a followup to the proposed plan, Rio Algom submitted, under letter dated May 31, 2007, Revision 1 of the plan and a response to NRC's request for additional information. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, and regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (10 CFR Part 40) require that material at uranium mill tailings sites be disposed of in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Rio Algom proposes to excavate its lined evaporation ponds (Ponds 9 and 11 through 21), and place all the contaminated sediments, dikes, and underlying materials onto the existing Tailings Cell 2. The expanded Cell 2 will then be closed as part of the facility decommissioning plan. Rio Algom estimates that up to 3 million cubic yards of materials will be excavated, hauled, and compacted as part of this action. The reclamation of the expanded Tailings Cell 2 is intended to:
(1)Control radiological hazards for 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable;
(2)limit the release of radon-222 from uranium by-product, and radon-220 from thorium by-product materials to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average of 20 pCi/m 2 /sec;
(3)reduce direct gamma exposure from the reclaimed tailings cell to background levels;
(4)avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites; and
(5)provide a final site that is geotechnically stable and provides protection of water resources for the long term. The NRC staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The New Mexico Environment Department was consulted during the EA preparation. The staff considered impacts that the licensee's amended Reclamation Plan will have on ground water, surface water, socioeconomic conditions, threatened and endangered species, transportation, land use, public and occupational health, and historic and cultural resources. The EA supports a FONSI based on the following conclusions. The potential impacts of the proposed action are limited to the land surface and are temporary during the construction activity. The direct impacts to the surface primarily will be dust generation due to excavating material, hauling it to the disposal area, and working it at the disposal area. Fugitive dust from heavy equipment operation will be mitigated through the use of dust suppression methods on haul roads. Impacts at the expansion cell area itself are minimal, since the area is already disturbed from site reclamation activities. The licensee's implementation of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the site, its site Health, Safety and Environment Management System, and NRC license requirements provide adequate assurances to control impacts to the environment. Additional ambient air monitoring stations have been installed to collect data to demonstrate that control measures are implemented and effective. 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 there is no need 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 as follows: Document ADAMS accession No. Date NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs—Final Report,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC ML031000403 April 10, 2003. NUREG-1620, Rev. 1, “Standard Review Plan for Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC ML040560561 February 19, 2004. Rio Algom Mining LLC, 2004, “Closure Plan-Lined Evaporation Ponds” ML050240058 November 1, 2004. Rio Algom, 2005; Reclamation Plan for Disposal of Pond Sediments and Ancillary Materials, Tailings Cell 2 Expansion ML051290050 April 30, 2005. Rio Algom 2007; Reclamation Plan for Disposal of Pond Sediments and Ancillary Materials, Tailings Cell 2 Expansion, Revision 1 ML071790245 ML071790250 May 31, 2007. Environmental Assessment for the Tailings Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan, Rio Algom Mining LLC's Uranium Mill Facility, Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, Final Report ML072670278 September, 2007. 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, O1 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 2nd day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, 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. E7-22114 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical Specification Improvement To Revise Control Rod Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify SRM Insert Control Rod Action, and Clarify Frequency Example AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has prepared a model safety evaluation
(SE)relating to the revision of Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1430 (B&W), NUREG-1431 (Westinghouse), NUREG-1432 (CE), NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6). Specifically the SE addresses:
(1)The revision of the technical specification
(TS)surveillance requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2 frequency in STS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,” (NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434),
(2)a clarification to the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)in STS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitor Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and
(3)the revision of Example 1.4-3 in STS Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434). The NRC staff has also prepared a model license amendment request and a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to modify TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarify TS control insertion requirements, and clarify SR frequency discussions. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply can request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their plant licensing basis. DATES: The NRC staff issued a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 46103; August 16, 2007) which provided a model SE, model application, and model NSHC related to BWR plant control rod notch surveillance frequency, BWR SRM control rod insertion action, and clarification of a surveillance frequency example for all plant types. Similarly, the NRC staff herein provides a revised model SE, model LAR, and model NSHC incorporating changes based upon the public comments received. The NRC staff can most efficiently consider applications based upon the model LAR, which references the model SE, if the LAR is submitted within one year of this **Federal Register** Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Kobetz, *Mail Stop:* O-12H2, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, *telephone:* 301-415-1932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes by processing proposed changes to the standard technical specifications
(STS)in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to technical specifications are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves the modification of BWR TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarification of BWR TS control insertion requirements, and clarification of SR frequency discussions for all pant types. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the Owners Groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)and is designated TSTF-475 Revision 1. TSTF-475 Revision 1 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* *** Reviewer's Note *** TSTF-475 involves three changes to the Standard Technical Specifications NUREGs that, depending upon the adopting plant, may or may not be adopted by a plant. The first changes the surveillance frequency for control rod notch testing from 7 to 31 days, and applies to BWR/4 and BWR/6 plants (NUREG-1433 & NUREG-1434). The second adds the word “fully” to a Required Action statement to clarify that control rods should be fully inserted, and applies to only the BWR/6 plants (NUREG-1434). The third change clarifies the usage of the 1.25 surveillance frequency interval extension, and applies to all plants (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434). The model application and model safety evaluation will need to be tailored (where brackets indicate) for plant specific applications. Applicability This proposed TS change modifies TS control rod SR testing frequency and clarifies TS control insertion requirements for BWR plants, and clarifies SR frequency discussions for all NSSS plant types. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the attached model SE and the NSHC. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-475, Revision 1, include TS Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the TS Bases proposed in TSTF-475, Revision 1 ( *note:* the change to STS Section 1.4 does not entail a Bases change). The staff is requesting that the TS Bases be included with the proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to the TS and the changes to the associated TS Bases form an integral change to a plant's licensing basis. To ensure that the overall change, including the TS Bases, includes appropriate regulatory controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes into the TS Bases document and that the licensee control changes to the TS Bases in accordance with the licensees TS Bases Control Program. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested TS Bases. However, deviations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Significant variations from the approach, or inclusion of additional changes to the license, will result in staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/or additional changes should submit a LAR that does not request to adopt TSTF-475, Revision 1, under CLIIP. Public Notices The staff issued a **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 46103, August 16, 2007) that requested public comment on the NRC's pending action to approve the modification of BWR TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarification of BWR TS control insertion requirements, and clarification of SR frequency discussions for all pant types, as proposed in TSTF-475, Revision 1. The TSTF-475, Revision 1, can be viewed on the NRC's web page at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html.* TSTF-475, Revision 1, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, (the Electronic Reading Room) at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* In response to the notice soliciting comments from interested members of the public about the modification of BWR TS control rod SR testing frequency, clarification of BWR TS control insertion requirements, and clarification of SR frequency discussions for all pant types, the staff received one set of comments (from the TSTF Owners Groups, representing licensees). The specific comments are provided and discussed below: 1. *Comment:* TSTF-475 contains three changes: The revision to SR 3.1.3.2 which is applicable to NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 (the Improved Standard Technical Specifications, or ISTS, for BWR/4 and BWR/6 plants), the change to Specification 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2 which is applicable to NUREG-1434 (the ISTS for BWR/6 plants), and the change to Example 1.4-3 which is applicable to NUREG-1430 through -1434 (the ISTS for all plant types). The applicability of the third change to all plant types is clearly indicated on the Traveler cover page and in the justification (last paragraph of Section 2.0, “Proposed Change.”) However, the Notice for Comment, model Safety Evaluation, model application, and No Significant Hazards Considerations Determination
(NSHC)incorrectly state that TSTF-475 is only applicable to BWR plants. The Notice, the model application, model Safety Evaluation, and NSHC should be revised to state that the change to Example 1.4-3 is applicable to all plant types. The model Safety Evaluation, model application, and NSHC should be revised to bracket (e.g., indicate as optional) the BWR/4 and BWR/6 specific changes so that the documents are applicable to a BWR/6 plant adopting all three changes, a BWR/4 plant adopting the SR 3.1.3.2 and Example 1.4-3 changes, or a pressurized water reactor
(PWR)plant adopting only the Example 1.4-3 change. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment and the model application, model Safety Evaluation, and NSHC have been revised accordingly. 2. *Comment:* In Section 3.0, “Technical Evaluation,” of the Notice, reference is made three times to the “BWROG TSTF” or “BWROG TSTF-475.” The Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)is sponsored by the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group and the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group. The proper designation is either “TSTF” or “Owners Group TSTF.” *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment and Section 3.0 of the model Safety Evaluation has been revised by removing explicit reference to the BWROG in referring to TSTF-475. 3. *Comment:* In Section 3.0, “Technical Evaluation,” the model Safety Evaluation states, “Therefore, the NRC staff finds the change acceptable with the commitment to implement GE water quality for the CRD system recommendations.” In the model application, a regulatory commitment is included which states, “[LICENSEE] will establish the water quality controls as recommended by SIL No. 148, Water Quality Control for the Control Rod System,” September 15, 1975.” This commitment should be removed. The TSTF's justification for TSTF-475 made no mention of and did not rely on water quality controls. The TSTF's July 3, 2006 response to the NRC's March 21, 2003 Request for Additional Information
(RAI)did not credit water chemistry controls. As stated in the justification and the Staff's model Safety Evaluation, 30 years of operating experience at BWRs without a control rod drive failure detected by the weekly notch testing is sufficient to demonstrate the acceptability of the change. The reference is technically incorrect. Supplement 1 to SIL No. 148 was issued in June 2004 and updates the SIL to bring it into alignment with current Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI)BWR water chemistry requirements, which were in conflict with the 1975 version of SIL. The NRC's Technical Evaluation in the draft Safety Evaluation did not reference SIL No. 148 (either the 1975 version or the current version). It is not appropriate for the NRC to require commitments to documents that were not relied on in the licensee's application, were not reviewed by the NRC, and were not discussed in the NRC's technical evaluation. Therefore, the reference to water chemistry controls in the model Safety Evaluation and the commitment in the model application should be removed. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment and the requirements for a commitment to establish water quality controls as recommended by SIL No. 148, Water Quality Control for the Control Rod System, in the model Safety Evaluation and in the model application have been removed. 4. *Comment:* Model Application: Attachment 5, “Proposed Technical Specification Bases,” should be marked as optional. There are no Bases changes associated with the PWR-applicable changes to Section 1.4. Furthermore, the Bases changes associated with TSTF-475 simply reflect the changes made to the specifications. It should be left to the licensee whether to submit Bases changes with the amendment request. The third paragraph omits Attachment 5, which is shown in the list of attachments below the signature. Attachment 3, “Proposed Technical Specification Pages,” should also be marked as optional as not all licensee's submit retyped Technical Specification pages as attachments to their amendment requests. *Response:* The staff does not agree with the comment. For those sections of the technical specifications that are changed in accordance with TSTF-475 and that have Bases, the Bases must be changed to reflect the change in accordance with TSTF-475. TS Section 1.4, that does not have Bases, does not need to have Bases changes submitted, and for those plants that are only adopting the TS Section 1.4 change, the Model Application Attachment 5, “Proposed Technical Specification Bases,” will be revised to indicate that the submittal of revised Bases pages is optional in that case. The staff does not see a need to revise Model Application Attachment 3. The staff expects to see the licensee's Bases changes associated with the adoption of TSTF-475. 5. *Comment:* Model Application: The Model Application states, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct.” This statement is not consistent with the recommended statement given in RIS 2001-18, “Requirements for Oath or Affirmation.” RIS 2001-18 recommends the statement, “I declare [or certify, verify, state] under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” Note that RIS 2001-18 states that this statement must be used verbatim. We recommend that the Model Application be revised to be consistent with RIS 2001-18. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment and the requirement in the model application for oath or affirmation has been reworded to be consistent with RIS 2001-18. 6. *Comment:* Attachment 4: The regulatory commitment states “[LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for [TS B 3.1.3, TS B 3.1.4, and TS B 3.3.1.2] as adopted with the applicable license amendment.” This statement is incorrect as the Bases changes included for information with the license amendment request are not “adopted” with the license amendment. Bases changes are made under licensee control under the Technical Specification Bases Control Program. We recommend revising the commitment to state “[LICENSEE] will implement Technical Specification Bases for TS [3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.3.1.2] consistent with those shown in TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” The commitment should also be marked as optional consistent with Comments 1 and 4, as the PWR-applicable change to Section 1.4 has no associated Bases changes. *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment in the sense that the Bases are not adopted as a license amendment is adopted, and therefore the wording of the commitment will be revised to state, “[LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for [TS B 3.1.3, TS B 3.1.4, and TS B 3.3.1.2] consistent with those shown in TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” The staff does not agree with the comment with respect to the Bases being provided purely for information and that the commitment is optional. The staff will review the Bases changes to ensure they are acceptable. If a licensee is only adopting the TS Section 1.4 portion of the TSTF-475 change, then the commitment would not apply, otherwise it would apply. 7. *Comment:* Model NSHC: To be consistent with 10 CFR 50.91(a), the title of Criterion 2 should be revised to add the word “Accident” before “Previously Evaluated.” Specifically, it should state, “The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated.” *Response:* The staff agrees with the comment and the model NSHC Criterion 2 statement has been reworded accordingly. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of November, 2007. Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Model Safety Evaluation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement, Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Change TSTF-475, Revision 1, Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency, Source Range Monitor Technical Specification Action to Insert Control Rods, and Surveillance Frequency Discussions 1.0 Introduction By letter dated August 30, 2004, the TSTF submitted a request (Reference 1) for changes to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS): NUREG-1430 Standard Technical Specifications B&W Plants (Reference 2); NUREG-1431 Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants (Reference 3); NUREG-1432 Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants (Reference 4); NUREG-1433, Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4 (Reference 5); and NUREG-1434, Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6 (Reference 6). The proposed changes would:
(1)Revise the TS control rod notch surveillance frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY,” (NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434),
(2)clarify the TS requirement for inserting control rods for one or more inoperable SRMs in MODE 5 (NUREG-1434 only), and
(3)revise one Example in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434). These changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, that proposes revisions to the reference STS by:
(1)revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of each fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM” (NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434),
(2)adding the word “fully” to LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2 (NUREG-1434 only) to clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies when the associated SRM instrument is inoperable, and
(3)revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column in addition to the time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434). [The purpose of the surveillances is to confirm control rod insertion capability which is demonstrated by inserting each partially or fully withdrawn control rod at least one notch and observing that the control rod moves. Control rods and control rod drive
(CRD)Mechanism (CRDM), by which the control rods are moved, are components of the CRD System, which is the primary reactivity control system for the reactor. By design, the CRDM is highly reliable with a tapered design of the index tube which is conducive to control rod insertion. A stuck control rod is an extremely rare event and industry review of plant operating experience did not identify any incidents of stuck control rods while performing a rod notch surveillance test. The purpose of these revisions is to reduce the number of control rod manipulations and, thereby, reduce the opportunity for reactivity control events.] The purpose of the change to Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” is to clarify the applicability of the 25% allowance of SR 3.0.2 to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column as well as to time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column. 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion
(GDC)29, Protection against anticipated occurrence, requires that the protection and reactivity control systems be designed to assure an extremely high probability of accomplishing their safety functions in an event of anticipated operational occurrences. The design relies on the CRDS to function in conjunction with the protection systems under anticipated operational occurrences, including loss of power to all recirculation pumps, tripping of the turbine generator, isolation of the main condenser, and loss of all offsite power. The CRDS provides an adequate means of inserting sufficient negative reactivity to shut down the reactor and prevent exceeding acceptable fuel design limits during anticipated operational occurrences. Meeting the requirements of GDC 29 for the CRDS prevents occurrence of mechanisms that could result in fuel cladding damage such as severe overheating, excessive cladding strain, or exceeding the thermal margin limits during anticipated operational occurrences. Preventing excessive cladding damage in the event of anticipated transients ensures maintenance of the integrity of the cladding as a fission product barrier. 3.0 Technical Evaluation In order to perform this SE, the NRC staff reviewed the following information provided by the TSTF to justify the submitted license amendment request to [revise the weekly control rod notch frequency to monthly (STS NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434)], [clarify the SRM TS action for inserting control rods (NUREG-1434 only), and] revise the discussion of the applicability of the 25% allowance in Example 1.4-3. Specifically, the following documents were reviewed during the NRC staff's evaluation: • TSTF letter TSTF-04-07 (Reference 1)—Provided a description of the proposed changes in TSTF-475 that changes the weekly rod notch frequency to monthly, clarify the SRM TS actions for inserting control rods, and clarify the applicability of the 25% allowance in Example 1.4-3. • [TSTF letter TSTF-06-13 (Reference 8)—Provided responses to NRC staff request for additional information
(RAI)on
(1)industry experience with identifying stuck rods,
(2)tests that would identify stuck rods,
(3)continue compliance with SIL 139,
(4)industry experience on collet failures, and
(4)applying the 25% grace period to the 31 day control rod notch SR test frequency. • BWROG letter BWROG-06036 (Reference 9)—Provided the GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” in which CRD notching frequency and CRD performance were evaluated. • TSTF letter TSTF-07-19 (Reference 10)—Provided response to NRC staff RAI on CRD performance in Control Cell Core
(CCC)designed plants, including TSTF-475, Revision 1. The CRD System is the primary reactivity control system for the reactor. The CRD System, in conjunction with the Reactor Protection System, provides the means for the reliable control of reactivity changes to ensure under all conditions of normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded. Control rods are components of the CRD System that have the capability to hold the reactor core subcritical under all conditions and to limit the potential amount and rate of reactivity increase caused by a malfunction in the CRD System. The CRD System consists of a CRDM, by which the control rods are moved, and a hydraulic control unit
(HCU)for each control rod. The CRDM is a mechanical hydraulic latching cylinder that positions the control blades. The CRDM is a highly reliable mechanism for inserting a control rod to the full-in position. The collet piston mechanism design feature ensures that the control rod will not be inadvertently withdrawn. This is accomplished by engaging the collet fingers, mounted on the collet piston, in notches located on the index tube. Due to the tapered design of the index tube notches, the collet piston mechanism will not impede rod insertion under normal insertion or scram conditions. The collet retainer tube
(CRT)is a short tube welded to the upper end of the CRD which houses the collet mechanism which consist of the locking collet, collet piston, collet return spring and an unlocking cam. The collet mechanism provides the locking/unlocking mechanism that allows the insert/withdraw movement of the control rod. The CRT has three primary functions:
(a)To carry the hydraulic unlocking pressure to the collet piston,
(b)to provide an outer cylinder, with a suitable wear surface for the metal collet piston rings, and
(c)to provide mechanical support for the guide cap, a component which incorporates the cam surface for holding the collet fingers open and also provides the upper rod guide or bushing. According to the BWROG, at the time of the first CRT crack discovery in 1975 each partially or fully withdrawn operable control rod was required to be exercised one notch at least once each week. It was recognized that notch testing provided a method to demonstrate the integrity of the CRT. Control rod insertion capability was demonstrated by inserting each partially or fully withdrawn control rod at least one notch and observing that the control rod moves. The control rod may then be returned to its original position. This ensures the control rod is not stuck and is free to insert on a scram signal. It was determined that during scrams, the CRT temperature distribution changes substantially at reactor operating conditions. Relatively cold water moves upward through the inside of the CRT and exits via the flow holes into the annulus on the outside. At the same time hot water from the reactor vessel flows downward on the outside surface of the CRT. There is very little mixing of the cold water flowing from the three flow holes into the annulus and the hot water flowing downward. Thus, there are substantial through wall and circumferential temperature gradients during scrams which contribute to the observed CRT cracking. Subsequently, many BWRs have reduced the frequency of notch testing for partially withdrawn control rods from weekly to monthly. The notch test frequency for fully withdrawn control rods are still performed weekly. The change, for partially withdrawn control rods, was made because of the potential power reduction required to allow control rod movement for partially withdrawn control rods, the desire to coordinate scheduling with other plant activities, and the fact that a large sample of control rods are still notch tested on the weekly basis. The operating experience related to the changes in CRD performance also provided additional justification to reduce the notch test frequency for the partially withdrawn control rods. In response to the NRC staff RAIs and to support their position to reduce the CRD notch testing frequency, the BWROG provided plant data and GE Nuclear Energy report, CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station (CRDNST). The GE report provided a description of the cracks noted on the original design CRT surfaces. These cracks, which were later determined to be intergranular, were generally circumferential, and appeared with greatest frequency below and between the cooling water ports, in the area of the change in wall thickness. Subsequently, cracks associated with residual stresses were also observed in the vicinity of the attachment weld. Continued circumferential cracking could lead to 360 degree severance of the CRT that would render the CRD inoperable which would prevent insertion, withdrawal or scram. Such failure would be detectable in any fully or partially withdrawn control rod during the surveillance notch testing required by the Technical Specifications. To a lesser degree, cracks have also been noted at the welded joint of the interim design CRT but no cracks haven been observed in the final improved CRT design. In a request for additional information, BWROG response of being unable to find a collet housing failure since 1975 supported the NRC staff review of not finding a collet housing failure. To date, operating experience data shows no reports of a severed CRT at any BWR. No collet housing failures have been noted since 1975. On a numerical basis for instance, based on BWROG assumption that there are 137 control rods for a typical BWR/4 and 193 control rods for a typical BWR/6, the yearly performance would be 6590 rod notch tests for a BWR/4 plant and 9284 for a BWR/6 plant. For example, if all BWRs operating in the U.S. are taken into consideration, the yearly performances of rod notch data would translate into approximately 240,000 rod notch tests without detecting a failure. In addition, the IGSCC crack growth rates were evaluated, at Limerick Generating Station, using GE's PLEDGE model with the assumption that the water chemistry condition is based on GE recommendations. The model is based on fundamental principles of stress corrosion cracking which can evaluate crack growth rates as a function of water oxygen level, conductivity, material sensitization and applied loads. It was determined that the additional time of 24 days represented an additional 10 mils of growth in total crack length. The small difference in growth rate would have little effect on the behavior between one notch test and the next subsequent test. Therefore, from the materials perspective based on low crack growth rates, a decrease in the notch test frequency would not affect the reliability of detecting a CRDM failure due to crack growth. Also, the BWR scram system has extremely high reliability. In addition to notch testing, scram time testing can identify failure of individual CRD operation resulting from IGSCC-initiated cracks and mechanical binding. Unlike the CRD notch tests, these single rod scram tests cover the other mechanical components such as scram pilot solenoid operated valves, the scram inlet and outlet air operated valves, and the scram accumulator, as well as operation of the control rods. Thus, the primary assurance of scram system reliability is provided by the scram time testing since it monitors the system scram operation and the complete travel of the control rod. Also, the HCUs, CRD drives, and control rods are also tested during refueling outages, approximately every 18-24 months. Based on the data collected during the preceding cycle of operation, selected control rod drives, are inspected and, as required, their internal components are replaced. Therefore, increasing the CRD notch testing frequency to monthly would have very minimal impact on the reliability of the scram system. The NRC staff has reviewed the TSTF-475 proposal to amend the (NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434) TS SR 3.1.3.2, “Control Rod OPERABILTY” from seven days to monthly. Based on the following evaluation condition:
(1)Slow crack growth rate of the CRT;
(2)the improved CRT design;
(3)a higher reliable method (scram time testing) to monitor CRD scram system functionality;
(4)GE chemistry recommendations; and
(5)no known CRD failures have been detected during the notch testing exercise, the NRC staff concluded that the changes would reduce the number of control rod manipulations thereby reducing the opportunity for potential reactivity events while having a very minimal impact on the extremely high reliability of the CRD system. The utilities should consider the replacement of the CRT, when possible, with the GE CRT improved design. The NRC staff has reviewed the TSTF-475 proposal to amend the NUREG-1434, Specification 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2 from “Initiate action to insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies” to “Initiate action to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies.” The NRC staff finds the revision acceptable because the requirement to insert control rods is meant to require control rods to be fully inserted and adding “fully” does not change but clarifies the intent of the action. The NRC staff has reviewed the TSTF-475 proposal to amend (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434) Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency,” to make the 1.25 provision in SR 3.0.2 to be equally applicable to time periods specified in the “FREQUENCY” column and in the NOTE in the “SURVEILLANCE” column. The NRC staff finds this change acceptable since the revision would make it consistent with the definition of specified “Frequency” provided in the second paragraph of Section 1.4 which states that the specified “Frequency” is referred to throughout this section and each of the Specifications of Section 3.0, Surveillance Requirement
(SR)Applicability. The specified “Frequency” consists of the requirements of the Frequency column of each SR, as well as certain Notes in the Surveillance column that modify performance requirements.” 3.1 Conclusion The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposal to amend existing [(NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434) TS sections SR 3.1.3.2, “Control Rod OPERABILTY,” (NUREG-1434) LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitor
(SRM)Instrumentation,” and] (NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434) Example 1.4-3, “Frequency” applicable to SR 3.0.2. The NRC staff has concluded that the TS revisions [will have a minimal affect on the high reliability of the CRD system while reducing the opportunity for potential reactivity events; thus, meeting the requirement of CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 29, and] will clarify the 1.25 provision in SR 3.0.2. Therefore, the staff concludes that the amendment request is acceptable. Based on the considerations discussed above, the Commission has concluded that:
(1)There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,
(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and
(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) no comments or
(2)the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff]. 5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations, and there has been no public comment on the finding [FR ]. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments. 6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that
(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,
(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and
(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 7.0 References 1. Letter TSTF-04-07 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, TSTF-475 Revision 0, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action,” August 30, 2004, ADAMS accession number ML042520035. 2. NUREG-1430, “Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 3. NUREG-1431, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 4. NUREG-1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 5. NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 6. NUREG-1434, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6, Revision 3,” August 31, 2003. 7. Letter TSTF-07-19, Response from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, “Request for Additional Information
(RAI)Regarding TSTF-475 Revision 0,” Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action,” dated February 28, 2007, (TSTF-475 Revision 1 is an enclosure), ADAMS accession number ML071420428. 8. Letter TSTF-06-13 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated July 3, 2006, ADAMS accession number ML0618403421. 9. Letter BWROG-06036 from the BWR Owners Group to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated November 16, 2006, with Enclosure of the GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, ADAMS accession number ML063250258. 10. Letter TSTF-07-19 from the Technical Specifications Task Force to the NRC, “Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding TSTF-475, Revision 0,” dated May 22, 2007, ADAMS accession number ML071420428]. THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE OF AN APPLICATION WAS PREPARED BY THE NRC STAFF TO FACILITATE USE OF THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (CLIIP). THE MODEL PROVIDES THE EXPECTED LEVEL OF DETAIL AND CONTENT FOR AN APPLICATION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING REVISION OF CONTROL ROD NOTCH SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCY, CLARIFICATION OF SRM INSERT CONTROL ROD ACTION, AND A CLARIFICATION OF A FREQUENCY EXAMPLE. LICENSEES REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THEIR ACTUAL APPLICATION FULFILLS THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATIONS. U.S. Nuclear Regular Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 SUBJECT: PLANT NAME, DOCKET NO. 50—APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REGARDING REVISION OF CONTROL ROD NOTCH SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCY, CLARIFICATION OF SRM INSERT CONTROL ROD ACTION, AND A CLARIFICATION OF A FREQUENCY EXAMPLE USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Gentleman: In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications
(TS)for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment would:
(1)[revise the TS surveillance requirement
(SR)frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,
(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,” and (3)] revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. Attachment 1 provides a description of the proposed change, the requested confirmation of applicability, and plant-specific verifications. Attachment 2 provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed change. Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the regulatory commitments made in this submittal. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed License Amendment by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official. I declare [or certify, verify, state] under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER]. Sincerely, [Name, Title] Attachments: 1. Description and Assessment 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes 3. Revised Technical Specification Pages 4. Regulatory Commitments 5. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes] cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Regional Office NRC Resident Inspector State Contact Attachment 1—Description and Assessment 1.0 Description The proposed amendment would:
(1)[Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR 3.1.3.2) frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,
(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation”, and (3)] revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)STS change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The **Federal Register** notice published on [DATE] announced the availability of this TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). 2.0 Assessment 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. This review included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation, as well as the supporting information provided to support TSTF-475, Revision 1. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS. 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations [LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the TS changes described in the modified TSTF-475, Revision 1 and the NRC staff's model safety evaluation dated [DATE]. 3.0 Regulatory Analysis 3.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the **Federal Register** as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the **Federal Register** notice is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in the notice of availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] for this TS improvement, the [LICENSEE] verifies the applicability of TSTF-475 to [PLANT], and commits to establishing Technical Specification Bases for TS as proposed in TSTF-475, Revision 1. These changes are based on TSTF change traveler TSTF-475 (Revision 1) that proposes revisions to the STS by:
(1)[Revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM”,
(2)adding the word “fully” to LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2 to clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies when the associated SRM instrument is inoperable, and (3)] revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column in addition to the time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column. 4.0 Environmental Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application. ATTACHMENT 2—PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (MARK-UP) ATTACHMENT 3—PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES ATTACHMENT 4—LIST OF REGULATORY COMMITMENTS The following table identifies those actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in this document. Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments. Please direct questions regarding these commitments to [CONTACT NAME]. Regulatory commitments Due date/event [[LICENSEE] will establish the Technical Specification Bases for [TS B 3.1.3, TS B 3.1.4, and TS B 3.3.1.2] consistent with those shown in TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.”] [Complete, implemented with amendment OR within X days of implementation of amendment]. ATTACHMENT 5—PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES PAGES [Not required for plants only adopting portion of TSTF-475 change pertaining to TS Section 1.4 that provides example to SR Frequency] Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination *Description of Amendment Request:* [Plant Name] requests adoption of an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications
(STS)for [General Electric
(GE)Plants (NUREG-1433, BWR/4 and NUREG-1434, BWR/6) and] plant specific technical specifications (TS), that allows:
(1)[revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully withdrawn control rod, from “7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of RWM” to “31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RWM”,
(2)adding the word “fully” to LCO 3.3.1.2 Required Action E.2 to clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies when the associated SRM instrument is inoperable, and (3)] revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the “SURVEILLANCE” column in addition to the time periods in the “FREQUENCY” column. The staff finds that the proposed STS changes are acceptable [because the number of control rod manipulations is reduced thereby reducing the opportunity for potential reactivity events while having a very minimal impact on the extremely high reliability of the CRD system as discussed in the technical evaluation section of this safety evaluation and] the discussion of the SR Frequency example provides clarification. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1, “Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.” TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes:
(1)revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement
(SR)3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,
(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation” (NUREG-1434 only), and
(3)revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety TSTF-475, Revision 1 will:
(1)[revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, “Control Rod OPERABILITY”,
(2)clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)in TS 3.3.1.2, “Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,” and (3)] revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 “Frequency” to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. [The GE Nuclear Energy Report, “CRD Notching Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,” dated November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the surveillance frequency.] Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 are acceptable and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Timothy J. Kobetz, Section Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-22159 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1556, Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator” AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the completion and availability of NUREG-1556, Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses, Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator,” dated October 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG-1556, Volume 21, may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328; *www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs,* 202-512-1800 or The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161-0002; *www.ntis.gov;* 1-800-533-6847 or, locally, 703-805-6000. A copy of the document is also available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The ADAMS Accession Number for NUREG-1556, Volume 21 is ML072900058. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The document will also be posted on NRC's public Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/* on the “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)” Web site page, and on the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs' NARM (Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material) Toolbox Web site page at: * http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/ narmtoolbox.html * under the heading of “Licensing Guidance.” Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address *www.nrc.gov* are updated regularly and may differ from the last printed version. A free single copy, to the extent of supply, may be requested by writing to Office of the Chief Information Officer, Reproduction and Distribution Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Printing and Graphics Branch, Washington, DC 20555-0001; facsimile:
(301)415-2289; e-mail: *Distribution@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torre Taylor, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-7900, e-mail: *tmt@nrc.gov;* or Duane White, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6272, e-mail: *dew2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Among other provisions, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), placing additional byproduct material under the NRC's jurisdiction, and required the Commission to provide a regulatory framework for licensing and regulating these additional byproduct materials. Specifically, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material by:
(1)Adding any discrete source of radium-226 that is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity; or any material that has been made radioactive by use of a particle accelerator and is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(3) of the AEA); and
(2)adding any discrete source of naturally occurring radioactive material, other than source material, that the Commission, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the head of any other appropriate Federal agency, determines would pose a threat similar to the threat posed by a discrete source of radium-226 to the public health and safety or the common defense and security; and is extracted or converted after extraction before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use in a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(4) of the AEA). NRC revised its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that includes these newly added radioactive materials. See **Federal Register** notice 72 FR 55864, dated October 1, 2007. As part of the rulemaking effort to address the mandate of the EPAct, the NRC also evaluated the need to revise certain licensing guidance to provide necessary guidance to applicants in preparing license applications to include the use of the newly added radioactive materials as byproduct material. Two NUREG-1556 documents are being revised to provide additional guidance to licensees:
(1)NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,” and
(2)NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses.” Additionally, a new NUREG-1556 volume was developed to address production of radioactive material using an accelerator. This NUREG-1556 volume is entitled: Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator.” NUREG-1556, Volume 21, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses—Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator” was noticed for public comment on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29555). Six comment letters were received and these comments were considered by the staff as this NUREG was finalized. NUREG-1556, Volume 21, provides guidance on preparing a license application for the production of radioactive material using an accelerator(s). It also includes the criteria that NRC staff will use in evaluating license applications for this use. This document includes guidance that is specific to the activities that take place once radioactive materials are produced by the accelerator, which include material in the target and associated activation products. This document does not include information for the operation of the accelerator as NRC does not regulate the accelerator or its operation. Volume 21 provides guidance related to each of the items that applicants should address in their materials license application, which includes items such as radioactive material that will be produced and its purpose; information on individuals responsible for the radiation safety program; training for individuals that will handle radioactive material; description of the facilities and equipment used; and the radiation safety program. There are some aspects of producing radioactive materials using an accelerator that are unique to this type of use and are discussed in the document. Some examples include training and experience for individuals who will handle radioactive material during the maintenance and repair of the accelerator and other associated equipment, and guidance on the facility design and type of equipment needed to transfer and handle large radioactive materials with high activities. This document also includes guidance on the production and noncommercial distribution of positron emission tomography radioactive drugs to consortium members. The remaining two NUREG-1556 volumes were noticed separately:
(1)NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36526), and
(2)NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42442). These two NUREGs are being finalized and will be available in the near future. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrice M. Bubar, Deputy Director, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-22157 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56749; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-128] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Related to the Marketing Fee Program November 6, 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 November 1, 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 substantially prepared by the Exchange. On November 2, 2007, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE 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, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.cboe.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has substantially 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 proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program as follows. First, CBOE proposes to increase the fee from $.10 to $.30 in the following Penny Pilot classes: Equity classes, OIH, and SMH. CBOE also proposes to begin to assess the marketing fee at the rate of $.30 in XLE and XLF, which are also Penny Pilot classes. As a result of this change, CBOE's marketing fee in these classes will be more competitive with the payment for order flow fee other options exchanges assess in these option classes, and allow CBOE market-makers to compete better for order flow in these option classes. CBOE will continue to collect the marketing fee at the rate of $.10 per contract in DIA and SPY, and not collect the marketing fee in QQQQ and IWM. Second, CBOE also proposes to begin to assess the marketing fee, at the current rate of 65 cents per contract, in all ETF and index option classes in which CBOE currently does not assess the marketing fee, except for the following option classes in which CBOE does not intend to assess the fee: DJX, DXL, EEM, EWC, EWT, IWM, MNX, MVR, OEX, QQQQ, RSP, SPX, VIX, VPL, VWO, XBI, XEO, XSP, credit default options, and credit default basket options. Similar to the proposed change relating to certain Penny Pilot classes, CBOE believes that collecting the marketing fee in these option classes will allow CBOE market-makers to compete better for order flow in these option classes. CBOE proposes to implement these changes to the marketing fee program beginning on November 1, 2007. CBOE is not amending its marketing fee program in any other respects. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 8 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. 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. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 9 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the Commission considers the period to commence on November 2, 2007, the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-128 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-2007-128. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2007-128 and should be submitted on or before December 4, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22098 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56742; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-008] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction in NASD Rule 3010(g)(1) To Exempt Locations That Solely Conduct Final Approval of Research Reports November 5, 2007. I. Introduction On August 30, 2007, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend the definition of Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (“OSJ”) in NASD Rule 3010(g)(1) to exempt locations that solely conduct final approval of research reports. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 5, 2007. 3 The Commission received two comment letters in support of the proposal. 4 This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56585 (October 1, 2007), 72 FR 57081. 4 *See* letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Marian H. Desilets, President, Association of Registration Management, Inc., dated October 25, 2007, and Jill Ostergaard and Christopher Mahon, Co-Chairs, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Self Regulation and Supervisory Practices Committee, dated October 30, 2007. II. Description of the Proposal NASD Rule 3010(g)(1) currently defines OSJ to mean any office of a member at which any one or more of the following functions takes place:
(a)Order execution and/or market making;
(b)structuring of public offerings or private placements;
(c)maintaining custody of customers' funds and/or securities;
(d)final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on behalf of the member;
(e)review and endorsement of customer orders, pursuant to paragraph
(d)above;
(f)final approval of advertising or sales literature for use by persons associated with the member, pursuant to NASD Rule 2210(b)(1); or
(g)responsibility for supervising the activities of persons associated with the member at one or more other branch offices of the member. In July 2006, amendments to the branch office definition under NASD Rule 3010(g)(2) went into effect (“Uniform Branch Office Definition”). 5 The Uniform Branch Office Definition was developed collectively by FINRA (then known as NASD), the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and the North American Securities Administrators Association to establish a national standard. In conjunction with the new Uniform Branch Office Definition, a Form BR was introduced to provide a more efficient, standardized method for members to register branch office locations. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52403 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104) (order approving Uniform Branch Office Definition). Although FINRA and NYSE sought to adopt consistent interpretations of the new Uniform Branch Office Definition, there were nevertheless different classifications of a location where final approval of research reports by a principal occurs. Under NASD's current rules, final review of advertising or sales literature (which includes research reports) makes a location an OSJ, and therefore a branch office. NYSE's rules, however, do not include an OSJ definition, 6 and NYSE stated in an *Information Memo* that it deems a location where a member stations a qualified supervisory analyst solely to review research reports as a “non-sales location,” which is an express exclusion from the Uniform Branch Office Definition. 7 6 *See* NYSE Rule 342 (Offices—Approval, Supervision and Control), which contains the Uniform Branch Office Definition. 7 *See* NYSE *Information Memo* 06-13 (March 22, 2006) (Joint Interpretive Guidance from NYSE and NASD Relating to the Uniform Branch Office Definition, Question and Answer #5). Due to this inconsistency, NASD published *Notice to Members* 07-12 in February 2007 seeking comment on a rule harmonization proposal to eliminate the definition of OSJ from the NASD manual. After reviewing the twenty comments received on the original proposal set forth in its *Notice to Members* 07-12, FINRA determined not to move forward with the broad proposal to eliminate the definition of OSJ and adopt new classifications for office locations. Instead, consistent with many of its commenters' recommendation, FINRA proposed to amend the definition of OSJ in the NASD rules to exclude locations that solely conduct final approval of research reports, thereby enabling FINRA to deem such locations to be “non-sales locations.” III. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 9 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will resolve the conflicting provisions in NASD and NYSE rules over the classification of locations that solely conduct final approval of research reports, and promote greater consistency in the application of the Uniform Branch Office Definition. The Commission also believes that providing an exemption from the definition of OSJs to such locations will reduce regulatory inefficiencies and eliminate unnecessary costs to member firms. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2007-008), be, and hereby is, approved. FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a *Regulatory Notice* to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be the date of publication of the *Regulatory Notice* announcing Commission approval. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22064 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56747; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-99] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists) November 5, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 3 notice is hereby given that on November 9, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed and withdrew Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on October 24, 2007 and October 29, 2007, respectively. The Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 on October 29, 2007 and November 5, 2007, respectively. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The NYSE is proposing an amendment to Exchange Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists) to allow the specialist's algorithm systems to generate trading messages that provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill an order at a sweep price. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to allow the specialist proprietary algorithm (“Specialist Algorithm”) to generate trading messages that provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill an order at a sweep price. Through the NYSE HYBRID MARKET SM (“Hybrid Market”) 4 the Exchange permitted specialists to establish electronic connections to the Display Book® 5 (“Display Book”). Specifically, the Specialist Algorithm generates quote and trade messages based on predetermined parameters to electronically participate in the Hybrid Market. The Specialist Algorithm is designed to communicate with the Display Book system via an Exchange-owned external Application Program Interface (“API”). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05). 5 The Display Book is an order management and execution facility. It receives and displays orders to the specialist, contains the orders received by the specialist (the “Book”), and provides a mechanism to execute and report transactions to the Consolidated Tape. In the Hybrid Market, the Specialist Algorithm is permitted to send messages to the Display Book via the API to quote or trade on behalf of the specialist's proprietary interest. The Specialist Algorithm may generate these quoting or trading messages in reaction to specific types of information. This information includes specialist dealer position, existing quotes, publicly available information the specialist chooses to supply to the algorithm, incoming orders as they are entering Exchange systems, and information about orders on the Display Book, which include limit orders, and percentage orders. This latter information stream is known as “state of the book” information. Based on discussions of Hybrid Market features with members and advisory committees the Exchange has effected selective changes to certain aspects of the Hybrid Market to produce a trading venue that best addresses the various needs of our members and customers. The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 104(b)(i)(F) to allow the Specialist Algorithm to provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill an order at a sweep price as described further below. 6 Currently, Rule 104(b)(i)(F) permits the Specialist Algorithm to generate a trading message to provide supplemental specialist volume at the Exchange published best bid or offer (“BBO”). This supplemental specialist volume is not displayed and is not part of the specialist reserve interest. With respect to priority and parity, supplemental specialist volume yields to displayed and reserve interest ( *i.e.,* supplemental specialist volume will not trade before customer limit orders, Floor broker agency interest and specialist interest). However, supplemental specialist volume are on parity with member organizations' off-Floor proprietary orders entered by Floor brokers pursuant to Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act, 7 and Rule 11a1-1(T) 8 thereunder (“G” orders). Additionally, Exchange systems do not permit a trading message to provide supplemental specialist volume that would trade-through a protected quotation in violation of the Regulation National Market System's Order Protection Rule. 9 6 The instant filing was initially filed with the Commission on November 9, 2006. The Exchange states that the proposed functionality inadvertently became operational in Exchange systems without Commission approval on or about January 24, 2007. The proposed rule change, as amended, is intended to codify the current Exchange system functionality. 7 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G). 8 17 CFR 240.11a-1(T). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005), 17 CFR 242.611. This trading message enables specialists, through the use of their algorithms, to provide more volume where, technically, there is no other interest available to trade with the customer order. For example, if 5,000 shares of an automatically executing market order to sell remain unfilled after trading with the displayed volume at the Exchange best bid and any reserve interest at that price, the Specialist Algorithm can send a trading message to buy all or some of the remaining 5,000 shares at the same price ( *i.e.* , the Exchange best bid). If the specialist buys less than the full size remaining, the order will sweep the orders on the Display Book including customer limit orders, Floor broker agency and specialist interest files to the extent permitted, until filled, its limit, if any, is reached or a Liquidity Replenishment Point (“LRP”) is triggered, whichever comes first. The Exchange seeks to further provide its customers with additional opportunities for a better priced execution by allowing the specialist to also partially or completely fill an order beyond the Exchange published best bid or offer at a sweep price. The Specialist Algorithm will generate this trading message in reaction to one order at a time and only as that order is entering Exchange systems. Additionally, this trading message will only be able to interact with the targeted order to add volume at one place, either at the Exchange best bid or offer or at a particular sweep price. In other words, the specialist will not have two opportunities to provide supplemental specialist volume to the incoming order at the Exchange best bid or offer and also at a particular price point should the order sweep the Display Book. There will be no change with respect to priority and parity. The supplemental specialist volume will continue to yield to displayed and reserve interest at each price point and will be on parity with G orders. The specialist's algorithm will make a determination about where and how much supplemental specialist volume to provide based on the state of the book information when the order is received by Exchange systems. An example of the proposed amendment to permit a trading message to provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill an order at a sweep price is set forth below: The Exchange best bid is $5.05 and 4,000 shares (2,000 shares displayed and 2,000 shares of non-displayed reserved interest) are available. The Exchange best offer is $5.10 and 2,000 shares (1,000 shares displayed and 1,000 shares of non-displayed reserve interest) are available. Supplemental specialist volume Reserve interest Buy LMT 100ths Sell LMT Reserve interest 5.12 5.11 5.10 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 5.05 1,000 1,000 5.04 1,000 2,000 5.03 1,000 5.02 1. An automatically executing market order to sell for 9,000 shares is received by Exchange systems. 2. Based on the state of the book, the Specialist Algorithm has determined based on the state of the book, *not* to provide supplemental specialist volume at the bid (i.e., buy all or some of the 5,000 shares at the same price, $5.05). However, the Specialist Algorithm determines to provide supplemental volume at the price of $5.03 and accordingly sends a trading message to provide 1,000 shares of supplemental specialist volume to interact with the sell order at $5.03. 3. 4,000 shares of the automatically executing sell order will execute against the Exchange best bid at a price of $5.05 leaving 5,000 shares of the sell order unfilled after trading with the 2,000 shares of displayed volume at the Exchange best bid and the 2,000 shares of reserve interest at that price. 4. In the absence of any other available interest at the Exchange bid, the order will start to sweep the orders on the Display Book and Floor broker agency and specialist interest files at each price point beyond the Exchange best bid. 5. At the price point of $5.04, there is another 1,000 shares of displayed and 1,000 shares of reserve buy interest. The sell order executes first against the displayed buy interest and then against the reserve buy interest. Therefore, 2,000 shares are executed, leaving 3,000 shares of the sell order unfilled. 6. At the price point of $5.03, there is another 2,000 shares of reserve buy interest. The sell order executes against that buy interest. Therefore, 2,000 shares of the sell order are filled leaving a balance of 1,000 shares unfilled. No other customer interest exists at this price point. 7. At the price point of $5.03, the Specialist Algorithm has previously determined to provide supplemental volume and sent a trading message to provide 1,000 shares of supplemental specialist volume to interact with the sell order at the same price point. 8. Having exhausted all the available displayed and reserve buy interest at the price point of $5.03; the sell order now interacts with the specialist's trading message to buy the remaining 1,000 shares of the sell order completing the execution. In this example, the supplemental specialist volume provided the sell order with an opportunity for a better priced execution and also aided in dampening volatility by limiting how far the order swept down to lower price points before it was fully executed. Thus, if the Specialist Algorithm had not determined to provide supplemental specialist volume at the price point of $5.03, the sell order would have continued its sweep down the Display Book and interacted with the available interest at the next price point of $5.02 completing the execution. If the specialist trading message did not provide enough supplemental volume to complete the order it would have continued to sweep the orders on the Display Book to the extent permitted until:
(a)Filled;
(b)its limit, if any was reached; or
(c)an LRP was triggered, whichever occurred first. It should be noted that the specialist is not required to buy the full size remaining of the sell order at the particular sweep price. The Exchange states that there is no disadvantage to the customer in allowing the specialists to partially fill an order at a particular sweep price especially when applicable rules only allow the supplemental specialist volume to interact with the order when no other interest exists. Under these circumstances, the order is afforded a better priced execution that it otherwise would not have. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 10 that an Exchange have rules that are 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. The proposed rule change is consistent with these objectives in that it provides additional trading messages to the Specialist Algorithm, which will further enable the specialist to meet its obligation of maintaining a fair and orderly market. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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 the proposed rule change, or
(B)institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2006-99 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. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-99. 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2006-99 and should be submitted on or before December 4, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22066 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56753; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-97] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify That a Member Organization May Still Use the Express Consent Procedure for Obtaining Consent From a Customer To Trade Along on an Order-By-Order Basis Under Rule 92(b) November 6, 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 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” 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 NYSE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to clarify the consent provisions for trading along under NYSE Rule 92 in an NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”) Information Memo (“Information Memo”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.nyse.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On July 5, 2007, the Commission approved amendments to NYSE Rule 92 that, among other things, expanded the consent provisions for trading along under Rule 92(b). 5 Under the pre-amended version of the rule, members or member organizations could trade along with a customer order that could be executed at the same price so long as the customer had given express permission, including an understanding of the relative price and size of allocated execution reports (“express consent procedure”). Under the express consent procedure, members or member organizations needed to obtain and document such consent on an order-by-order basis. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56017 (July 5, 2007), 72 FR 38110 (July 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-21). As amended, a member or member organization can trade along with a customer order under Rule 92(b) so long as the member organization “periodically provides written disclosures to its customers and obtains and documents affirmative consent” (“affirmative consent procedure”). Because the affirmative consent procedure is broader than the express consent procedure, the Exchange did not keep the text of the express consent procedure in the rule. As explained in the Information Memo, in expanding the consent procedures under Rule 92(b), the Exchange did not intend to prohibit the use of the express consent procedure for obtaining trade-along consent in a given instance. The Information Memo clarifies that a member organization may still use the express consent procedure for obtaining consent from a customer to trade along on an order-by-order basis under Rule 92(b). Accordingly, if a customer does not want to provide blanket affirmative consent, a member organization may still obtain consent on an order-by-order basis to trade along with an order from that customer. In addition, the Information Memo advises member organizations of a recent NYSE Regulation Hearing Panel decision concerning the express consent procedure. In that decision, a member organization was fined for failing to adhere to principles of good business practice because it did not record both the customer contact name and the percentage split when documenting whether a customer provided trade-along consent under the Rule 92(b) express consent procedure. 6 The Information Memo informs member organizations that NYSE Regulation considers the failure to document the contact name of the person who provided the express consent to be a violation not only of NYSE Rule 401, but of NYSE Rule 92 as well. 6 *See In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,* NYSE Hearing Board Decision 07-005 (January 12, 2007). The Information Memo also addresses the September 30, 2007 deadline that was part of the original filing. The purpose of that deadline was to provide member organizations with a grace period to make the written disclosures required under amended Rule 92. That three-month grace period provided firms with the opportunity to use the new affirmative consent process immediately upon approval of the amended rule, even before their written disclosures were finalized, so long as the process of making written disclosures and documenting the orally-provided consents was completed by September 30, 2007. Because the grace period has expired, member organizations must provide written disclosures to their customers and document the customers' affirmative consents *before* they may trade along with such customers. 7 7 In addition, the Information Memo answers inquiries that NYSE Regulation has received from a number of member organizations regarding the scope and application of amended Rule 92(b). That portion of the Information Memo is not subject to this rule filing. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 8 that an Exchange have rules that are 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. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 10 because it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-97 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-NYSE-2007-97. 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, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-97 and should be submitted on or before December 4, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22099 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Document No. SSA-2007-0087] The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Meeting AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of Teleconference. DATE: November 26, 2007—4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Conference Call, Call-in number: 1-888-790-4158, Pass code: PANEL TELECONFERENCE, Leader/Host: Berthy De la Rosa-Aponte. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Type of meeting:* On November 26, 2007, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel (the “Panel”) will hold a teleconference. This teleconference meeting is open to the public. *Purpose:* In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Social Security Administration
(SSA)announces this teleconference meeting of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel. The publication of this announcement may not meet the 15 day advance notice requirement provided in CFR 102.3.150. The need for this teleconference was not previously anticipated and therefore not scheduled, but will be required to allow further deliberation on the Panel's final report. Section 101(f) of Public Law 106-170 establishes the Panel to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of SSA on issues related to work incentive programs, planning, and assistance for individuals with disabilities as provided under section 101(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The Panel is also to advise the Commissioner on matters specified in section 101(f)(2)(B) of that Act, including certain issues related to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program established under section 101(a). *Agenda:* The agenda for the meeting will be posted on the Internet at *http://www.ssa.gov/work/panel* at least one week before the starting date or can be received, in advance, electronically or by fax upon request. *Contact Information:* Records are kept of all proceedings and will be available for public inspection by appointment at the Panel office. Anyone requiring information regarding the Panel should contact the staff by: • Mail addressed to the Social Security Administration, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Staff, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone contact with Debra Tidwell-Peters at
(202)358-6126. • Fax at
(202)358-6440 • E-mail to *TWWIIAPanel@ssa.gov.* Dated: November 6, 2007. Chris Silanskis, Designated Federal Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22171 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5989] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Projects 86: Gert & Uwe Tobias” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Projects 86: Gert & Uwe Tobias,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 28, 2007, until on or about February 25, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8052). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: November 2, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-22152 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5988] Fine Arts Committee Notice of Meeting The Fine Arts Committee of the Department of State will meet on November 16, 2007 at 11 a.m. in the Henry Clay Room of the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will last until approximately 12 p.m. and is open to the public. The agenda for the committee meeting will include a summary of the work of the Fine Arts Office since its last meeting on April 20, 2007 and the announcement of gifts and loans of furnishings as well as financial contributions from January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2007. Public access to the Department of State is strictly controlled and space is limited. Members of the public wishing to take part in the meeting should telephone the Fine Arts Office at
(202)647-1990 or send an e-mail to *Craighillmf@state.gov* by November 12 to make arrangements to enter the building. The public may take part in the discussion as long as time permits and at the discretion of the chairman. Dated: October 22, 2007. Marcee F. Craighill, Secretary, Fine Arts Committee, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-22143 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-35-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5963] Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee SUMMARY: This notice announces meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee
(ITAC)to prepare advice on U.S. positions for meeting of the Advisory and Study Groups of the International Telecommunication Union—Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). The ITAC will meet as the ITAC-T to prepare for the ITU-T December 2007 Advisory Group meeting on November 14 and 19, 2007, in the Washington, DC metro area. Both meetings are from 10 a.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time. A conference bridge will be provided. Meeting details will be posted on the mailing list *itac-t@state.gov* . People desiring to participate on this list may apply to the secretariat at *minardje@state.gov* . The ITAC will meet as the ITAC Study Group B to prepare for the January 2008 meeting of ITU-T Study Groups 11, 13, and 19 hosted by COMTECH Telecommunications Corporation in Chantilly, Virginia. The meeting will start at 10 a.m. Eastern Time on December 14, 2007. A conference bridge will be provided. Meeting details will be posted on the mailing list *sgb@state.gov* . People desiring to participate on this list may apply to the secretariat at *minardje@state.gov* . The meetings are open to the public. Dated: October 18, 2007. James G. Ennis, International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-22140 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5967] U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law: Public Meeting on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Draft Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions and its Treatment of Security Rights in Intellectual Property
(IP)The Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public meeting to discuss the treatment of IP secured financing practices in the UNCITRAL Draft Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions (Guide). At the 40th Session of the UNCITRAL (held June 25 through July 12, 2007), the Commission adopted a portion of the draft Guide, and scheduled adoption of the remaining portion for a second meeting of the Commission to take place in Vienna, Austria December 10-14, 2007. The Commission at its July 2007 session adopted recommendations dealing with the scope of the draft Guide as it relates to IP law and secured financing, as well as the inclusion in the commentary to the Guide of explanatory statements on the treatment of IP as secured financing. The Commission also tentatively approved a new work project on IP law matters as they relate to secured financing law, which would be initiated after conclusion of the Guide in its present scope. The first meeting on the new IP related project may occur in the spring of 2008. A top priority for the resumed Session is final adoption of the revised commentary and draft Guide. The ACPIL will use this public meeting to exchange thoughts on the draft Guide as it relates to IP secured financing matters with a view to determining what areas would need to be addressed in UNCITRAL's second phase of work. The draft UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions and relevant information can be obtained at *http://www.uncitral.org/english/commission/sessions.* *Time:* The public meeting will take place at the Department of State, Office of Private International Law, 2430 E Street, NW., Washington, DC on Wednesday November 28, 2007 from 1 p.m. EDT to 5:30 p.m. EDT. Public Participation: Advisory Committee Study Group meetings are open to the public, subject to the capacity of the meeting room. Access to the meeting building is controlled; persons wishing to attend should contact Tricia Smeltzer or Maya Garrett of the Department of State's Legal Adviser's Office at *SmeltzerTK@State.gov* or *GarrettM@State.gov* and provide your name, e-mail address, mailing address, and affiliation(s) to get admission to the meeting and to get directions to the office. Additional meeting information can also be obtained from Rachel Wallace at *WallaceRA@state.gov* or telephone
(202)647-2324. Persons who cannot attend but who wish to comment on any of the proposals are welcome to do so by e-mail to Michael Dennis at *DennisMJ@state.gov.* If you are unable to attend the public meeting and you would like to participate by teleconferencing, please contact Tricia Smeltzer or Maya Garrett at 202-776-8420 to receive the conference call-in number and the relevant information. Dated: November 6, 2007. Michael Dennis, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-22139 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary of Transportation [Docket Nos. OST-2007-0004, FHWA-2007-0004, and FTA-2007-0004] Solicitation of Applications for Funding of Congestion-Reduction Demonstration Initiatives AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (“OST”); Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”); Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), Department of Transportation (“DOT”). ACTION: Notice of solicitation for applications to enter into agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Department”) for funding under any or all of the following programs (collectively, the “Funding Programs”) to support qualified congestion-reduction demonstration initiatives:
(i)FHWA's Delta Region Transportation Development Program (§ 1308 of Public Law 109-59) (the “Delta Region Program”);
(ii)FHWA's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program (23 U.S.C. 147) (the “Ferry Boat Program”);
(iii)FHWA's Highways for Life Pilot Program (§ 1502 of Public Law 109-59) (the “HfL Program”);
(iv)FHWA's Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program (23 U.S.C. 503(b)) (the “Innovative Bridge Program”);
(v)FHWA's Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program (23 U.S.C. 118(c)) (the “IMD Program”);
(vi)FHWA's Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program (23 U.S.C. 202-204) (the “Public Lands Program”);
(vii)FHWA's Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (§ 1117 of Public Law 109-59) (the “TCSP Program”);
(viii)FHWA's Truck Parking Facilities Pilot Program (§ 1305 of Public Law 109-59) (the “Truck Parking Program”);
(ix)FTA's capital program for Bus and Bus-Related Facilities (49 U.S.C. 5309) (the “Bus Program”);
(x)FTA's capital program for New Fixed Guideway Facilities, including “Small Starts” projects (49 U.S.C. 5309, 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)) (the “Small Starts Program”);
(xi)FTA's Alternatives Analysis Program (49 U.S.C. 5339); and
(xii)any other discretionary program administered by the Department and designated by the Secretary as a source of funding under such agreements. SUMMARY: This Notice solicits proposals to enter into certain agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Department”). Through these agreements, the Department intends to support congestion pricing along with complementary transportation solutions proposed by jurisdictions designated as recipients of Federal assistance in accordance with this Notice (each, a “qualified jurisdiction”). Funds made available by the Department to qualified jurisdictions may include such sums as may be available for obligation in the Department's discretion during Fiscal Year 2008, including funds designated by law to support the Department's Congestion Initiative, as proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget. 1 1 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/transportation.html* ). The Department reserves the right to solicit candidates for funding described herein by means other than this Notice. The Department expects to implement the procedures and criteria set forth in this Notice; however, such procedures and criteria shall not be binding on the Department. DATES: Applicants wishing to become qualified jurisdictions must submit their applications on or before December 31, 2007. Late-filed applications will be considered to the extent practical. The Department intends to announce agreements with qualified jurisdictions in Fiscal Year 2008. ADDRESSES: Applicants wishing to become qualified jurisdictions may file their applications electronically via e-mail to Thomas M. McNamara at *thomas.mcnamara@dot.gov* or through “grants.gov” at *http://www.grants.gov.* (Please note that solely for purposes of this solicitation, the Department prefers, but does not require, submission of applications by means of the e-mail address above). In the event that either of the forgoing options for submission would impose a hardship on an applicant, the applicant may request an exception by email to the email address above. If an exception is granted, the applicant may send a single copy of its application by U.S. Post or express mail to: Thomas M. McNamara, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W84-322, Washington, DC 20590. The Department shall only deem applications received via email or through grants.gov (or by U.S. Post or express mail pursuant to an exception) as provided above to be properly filed with the Department. The Department shall deem a single application filed pursuant to this Notice to be properly filed with each of the Funding Programs identified therein, and will not require separate applications to each such program, unless the Department determines otherwise in its discretion. Before using grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register and create an institutional profile at the grants.gov Web site. Applicants planning to apply electronically are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the grants.gov Web site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please address questions concerning this Notice to David B. Horner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, at 202-689-4464 (or by e-mail at *david.horner@dot.gov* ). Please address technical questions concerning project development to Thomas M. McNamara at 202-366-4462 (or by e-mail at *thomas.mcnamara@dot.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background *Crisis of Congestion.* Traffic congestion affects people in nearly every aspect of their daily lives—where they live, where they work, where they shop, and how much they pay for goods and services. According to 2005 figures, in certain metropolitan areas the average rush hour driver loses as many as 60 hours per year to travel delay—the equivalent of one and a half full work weeks, amounting annually to a “congestion tax” of approximately $1,200 per peak time traveler in wasted time and fuel. 2 Nationwide, congestion imposes costs on the economy of at least $78 billion per year. 3 The costs of congestion are higher, however, after taking into account the significant cost of unreliability to drivers and businesses, the environmental impacts of idle-related auto emissions, increased gasoline prices and the immobility of labor markets that result from congestion, all of which substantially affect interstate commerce. 2 Texas Transportation Institute (“TTI”), 2007 Urban Mobility Report, September 2007. 3 TTI, 2007 Urban Mobility Report. Traffic congestion also has a substantial negative impact upon the quality of life of many American families. In a 2005 survey, for example, 52% of Northern Virginia commuters reported that their travel times to work had increased in the past year, 4 leading 70% of working parents to report having insufficient time to spend with their children and 63% of respondents to report having insufficient time to spend with their spouses. 5 Nationally, in a 2005 survey conducted by the National League of Cities, 35% of U.S. citizens reported traffic congestion as the most deteriorated living condition in their cities over the past five years; 85% responded that traffic congestion was as bad as, or worse than, it was in the previous year. 6 Similarly, in a 2001 survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 79% of Americans from ten metropolitan areas reported that congestion had worsened in the prior five years; 50% believe it has become “much worse.” 7 4 Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance 2005 Survey ( *http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1174* ). 5 Virginia Department of Transportation. 6 National League of Cities survey of cities (2005). 7 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey on traffic congestion (2001). *Solicitation.* This Notice solicits proposals to enter into certain agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Department”). Through these agreements, the Department intends to support congestion pricing along with complementary transportation solutions proposed by jurisdictions designated as recipients of Federal assistance in accordance with this Notice (each, a “qualified jurisdiction”). Funds made available by the Department to qualified jurisdictions may include such sums as may be available for obligation in the Department's discretion during Fiscal Year 2008, including funds designated by law to support the Department's Congestion Initiative, as proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget. 8 8 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/transportation.html* ). The Department expects to award funding only for those proposals that integrate innovative transit strategies, new transportation technologies and direct highway pricing during congested periods. In return for their agreement to adopt such strategies, the Department will support qualified jurisdictions with financial resources identified in this Notice, regulatory flexibility, and dedicated expertise and personnel. Because the Secretary generally allocates discretionary highway grant funds to State DOTs, applicants that are non-State DOTs applying for discretionary highway funds made available under any of the specified Funding Programs should partner with or submit an application through the State DOT for these funds. B. Funding Programs The Department proposes to support qualified jurisdictions through the following programs:
(i)*FHWA's Delta Region Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Delta Region Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under section 1308 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (or “SAFETEA-LU”) (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005), the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects that support and encourage multi-state transportation planning and corridor development, provide for transportation project development, facilitate transportation decision making, and support transportation construction in the 240 counties and parishes within the eight states comprising the Delta Regional Authority's region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee). Eligible projects must either
(a)traverse more than one State and carry interstate commerce or
(b)have been identified by the Delta Regional Authority as highways of regional significance, (i.e., on or expected to be on the Delta Development Highway System). Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Delta Region Transportation Development Program as described in last year's request for applications, found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/s1308fy07drtdp.htm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(ii)*FHWA's Ferry Boat Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Ferry Boat Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under section 1801 of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects that involve the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 147. Ferry Boat Program Funds are available for construction/improvement to ferry boats or ferry boat terminals where, among other things:
(a)It is not feasible to build a bridge, tunnel, combination thereof, or other normal highway structure in lieu of the use of such ferry;
(b)the operation of the ferry shall be on a route classified as a public road within the State or Territory and which has not been designated as a route on the Interstate System; and
(c)such ferry boat or ferry terminal facility shall be publicly owned or operated or majority publicly owned if the Secretary determines, with respect to a majority publicly owned ferry or ferry terminal facility, that such ferry boat or ferry terminal facility provides substantial public benefits. Eligible projects may include either ferry boats that carry both cars and passengers, or ferry boats carrying passengers only. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Ferry Boat Program found at: *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/fbdinfo.cfm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(iii)*FHWA's HfL Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the HfL Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under section 1502 of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects otherwise eligible for assistance under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code that, among other things,
(a)use innovative technologies, manufacturing processes, financing or contracting methods that improve safety, reduce congestion due to construction, and improve quality, and
(b)constructs, reconstructs or rehabilitates a route or connection on an eligible Federal-aid highway. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the HfL Program as described in an earlier solicitation for projects, found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/application_memo.cfm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(iv)*FHWA's Innovative Bridge Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Innovative Bridge Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under section 5202(b) of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects that promote, demonstrate, evaluate, and document the application of innovative designs, materials, and construction methods in the construction, repair, and rehabilitation of bridge and other highway structures, for purposes including—but not limited to—increasing safety and reducing construction time and traffic congestion. Detailed Innovative Bridge Program goals are identified in 23 U.S.C. 503(b)(2). Eligible projects may be on any public roadway, including State and locally funded projects. Funds may be used for costs of preliminary engineering, repair, rehabilitation, or construction of bridges or other highway structures, and costs of project performance evaluation and performance monitoring of the structure following construction. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Innovative Bridge Program found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/ibrd/032807.cfm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(v)*FHWA's IMD Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the IMD Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under 23 U.S.C. 118(c), the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects that involve resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction (“4R”) work, including added lanes to increase capacity, on most existing Interstate System routes. Ineligible projects include those that are located on
(a)any highway designated as a part of the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139, as in effect before the enactment of TEA-21,
(b)any toll road on the Interstate System not subject to an agreement under 23 U.S.C. 119(e), as in effect on December 17, 1991, or
(c)any highway added to the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(4) and section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Any proposed or future Interstate route is also not eligible for IMD funds. A full listing of the statutory criteria for eligibility of IMD projects is provided in 23 U.S.C. 118(c). Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Interstate Maintenance Program found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/imdinfo.cfm* . The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(vi)*FHWA's Public Lands Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Public Lands Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under 23 U.S.C. 204(b)(5), the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund “any kind of transportation project eligible for assistance under title 23, United States Code, that is within, adjacent to, or provides access to” Federal lands or facilities. Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 204(b)(1)(A), Public Lands Program funds are available for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of the highways, roads, and parkways, and of transit facilities within the Federal public lands. Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 204(b)(1)(B), Public Lands Program funds are also available for operation and maintenance of transit facilities located on Federal public lands. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Public Lands Program found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/plhcurrsola3.cfm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(vii)*FHWA's TCSP Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the TCSP Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under section 1117 of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships between transportation, community, and system preservation and to identify private sector-based initiatives to improve such relationships. States, metropolitan planning organizations (“MPOs”), local governments (including, but not limited to, towns, cities, public transit agencies) and tribal governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants. Non-governmental organizations that have projects they wish to see funded under this program are encouraged to partner with an eligible recipient as the project sponsor. Activities eligible for TCSP Program funding include activities that are eligible for Federal highway and transit funding (title 23, U.S.C., or Chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C.) or other activities determined by the Secretary to be appropriate. Grants may be used to plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the TCSP Program found at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/pi_tcsp.htm.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(viii)*FHWA's Truck Parking Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Truck Parking Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. As directed by section 1305 of SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary established a pilot program to address the shortage of long-term parking for commercial motor vehicles on the National Highway System. States, MPOs and local governments are eligible to receive discretionary grants available under this pilot program. Section 1305 allows for a wide range of eligible projects, ranging from construction of spaces and other capital improvements to using intelligent transportation systems
(ITS)technology to increase information on the availability of both public and private commercial vehicle parking spaces. Please note that applications to the Truck Parking Program with respect to “Corridors of the Future” may receive priority in consideration and funding under the program.
(ix)*FTA's Bus Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Bus Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under 49 U.S.C. 5309, the Administrator of FTA, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may provide capital assistance for the acquisition of buses and bus-related equipment or facilities. Only capital projects that are eligible under the Bus Program and that improve existing transit service or provide new transit service in a corridor or area that is part of a congestion reduction demonstration shall be eligible for funding pursuant to this Notice. Costs of a project eligible for funding under the Bus Program include the acquisition of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, inter-modal terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. Applicants must address FTA's standard requirements for an application for Section 5309 capital program assistance found in FTA's Circular C 9300.1A “Capital Program: Grant Application Instructions” 9 and FTA's Circular C 5010.1C “Grant Management Guidelines.” 10 9 *See http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3557.html.* 10 *See http://www.fta.dot.gov/laws/circulars/leg_reg_4114.html.*
(x)*FTA's Small Starts Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Small Starts Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under 49 U.S.C. 5309, the Administrator of FTA, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may provide up to $75 million per project for qualifying fixed guideway capital projects, including certain bus rapid transit projects. Pursuant to its guidance on the Small Starts Program, 11 FTA will facilitate worthy projects that are part of comprehensive congestion-reduction strategies, including strategies that incorporate congestion pricing. In its evaluation of projects proposed for funding under Small Starts pursuant to this Notice, an applicant's designation as a qualified jurisdiction will be an “other factor” taken into account by the FTA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(4)(E). 11 Please see the terms of the Small Starts program set forth in the Guidance on Small Starts at *http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-2774.pdf.*
(xi)*FTA's Alternatives Analysis Program.* The Department may obligate all or part of such sums available for obligation in its discretion under the Alternatives Analysis Program in Fiscal Year 2008 to support eligible projects sponsored by qualified jurisdictions. Under 49 U.S.C. 5339, the FTA Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may fund projects that support technical work conducted within an alternatives analysis, in which one of the alternatives is a major transit capital investment. FTA will give priority to proposals to develop and apply methods to estimate the time savings experienced by highway users that result from transit investments. Applicants must address the standard requirements for an application to the Alternatives Analysis Program found in notice describing the Alternatives Analysis Program at *http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo. gov/2007/pdf/E7-4830.pdf.* The application procedures and deadlines provided in this Notice supersede those set forth in the forgoing hyperlink.
(xii)*Other Assistance.* Under the Department's Private Activity Bond Program, the Department may allocate to qualified jurisdictions authority to issue private activity bonds for qualified projects in order to lower their cost of capital. As of the date of this Notice, the Department may allocate up to $9.5 billion in private activity bond authority not already allocated or applied for. Under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (“TIFIA”), the Department may provide qualified jurisdictions direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit for qualified projects. TIFIA allows for the support of approximately $10 billion in credit assistance. The Department may provide qualified jurisdictions the authority to institute tolls on portions of their Interstate systems 12 and expedite project delivery by waiving certain FHWA regulations (in accordance with FHWA's Special Experimental Project (or “SEP-15”) program or as otherwise permitted by law), and placing key projects on the Environmental Stewardship Executive Order, 13 allowing for the streamlining of some aspects of the environmental review process. Finally, the Department may offer extensive technical expertise and advice from world class engineers and economists. 12 As enacted by SAFETEA-LU, the High Occupancy Vehicle (“HOV”) Facilities Program (23 U.S.C. 166) allows States and localities to convert HOV lanes to high Occupancy toll (“HOT”) lanes which allow low-occupant vehicle users to pay for the chance to travel on underutilized HOV lanes, shifting traffic from congested regular lanes to HOV lanes, while maintaining free-flowing travel speeds and vehicle throughput performance for all vehicles in the HOV lanes. When operated in parallel with general purpose lanes, HOT lanes offer drivers an option to pay for congestion-free predictable trips when they need it the most, while improving the performance of general purpose lanes. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 166, FTA has recently published proposed guidance that, once adopted as final, would eliminate certain existing disincentives to jurisdictions to convert their HOV lanes to HOT lanes. In particular the proposed guidance describes the terms and conditions on which FTA would classify HOV lanes that are converted to HOT lanes as “fixed guideway miles” for purposes of the transit funding formulas administered by FTA. See “Policy Statement on When High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Converted to High-Occupancy/Toll Lanes Shall Be Classified as Fixed Guideway Miles for FTA's Funding Formulas and When HOT Lanes Shall Not Be Classified as Fixed Guideway Miles for FTA's Funding Formulas” ( *http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-14796.pdf* ). 13 *See* Executive Order 13274: Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews (September 18, 2002) at *http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/eo091802.asp.* C. Application Process Applications to become qualified jurisdictions must be submitted on or before December 31, 2007 (with late-filed applications being considered to the extent practical). The Department expects to sign agreements with qualified jurisdictions, once designated, as soon as possible thereafter. The Department expects implementation or pre-implementation efforts for the proposed congestion reduction activities to commence shortly after an agreement (or series of agreements) with the qualified jurisdiction is signed. While the applicant for consideration as a qualified jurisdiction must be a public body, signatories to an agreement concerning congestion-reducing projects may include city and county governments, metropolitan planning organizations, State transportation departments, chambers of commerce, academic institutions, citizen advisory groups, or other responsible organizations that seek to resolve major congestion problems (any of whom may apply to become a qualified jurisdiction). The Department shall deem a single application filed pursuant to this Notice to be an application properly filed with each of the Funding Programs. Separate applications to specific Funding Programs shall not be required. D. Contents of Application An application to become a qualified jurisdiction should briefly describe, with respect to the metropolitan area proposed,
(i)why its traffic congestion is severe,
(ii)the local public's acknowledgement of the problem,
(iii)the readiness of the metropolitan area's political leadership to solve the problem and
(iv)a solution to congestion that integrates innovative transit strategies, new transportation technologies and direct highway pricing during congested periods. In addition, an application should be responsive to the specifications and criteria set forth below. The Department recognizes that information provided in an application to become a qualified jurisdiction may be preliminary and incomplete. The Department, in its discretion, may ask certain applicants to supplement the data in their applications to the extent practical.
(i)*Length of Applications:* An application should not exceed 40 pages in length, including both the proposal details and appendix materials. Appendix materials may include maps of roadways and other affected facilities (such as bridges and parallel routes) and maps of BRT routes and other transit services or facilities that are directly involved.
(ii)*Participating Parties:* An application should provide a preliminary, non-binding list of the parties likely to participate in the agreement between a qualified jurisdiction and the Department.
(iii)*Comprehensive Congestion Reduction Strategy:* An application should generally describe the metropolitan area's proposed comprehensive congestion reduction strategy, and explain how different parts of that strategy, if any, would interact to reduce congestion.
(iv)*Congestion Pricing Measures and Affected Areas:* An application should describe the role pricing would play in the congestion reduction strategy. To the extent practical, an application should indicate, in specific terms, how traffic would be affected, what areas or routes would be priced, how congestion prices would be determined, and which vehicle categories would be affected (e.g., single occupant vehicles or all vehicles).
(v)*Transit Services:* An application should describe transit services, including BRT and other commuter transit services that are to be provided or supplemented, and the expected impacts of the expanded transit services on congestion. The application should also describe transit fare pricing policies to be adopted with the objective of increasing traveler throughput during peak traffic periods, while avoiding excessive congestion in the transit system.
(vi)*Use of Technology:* An application should clearly indicate the extent to which a locality plans to operationally test innovative technology in achieving its congestion reduction targets.
(vii)*Expedited Project Completion:* An application should indicate any major transportation projects or project components that are sought to be expedited through an agreement with the Department. The application should also indicate the expected effects on congestion from early completion of these projects.
(viii)*Travelers Affected Daily:* An application should indicate the estimated number of daily travelers that will be directly affected by priced facilities and by other measures expected to be adopted by the qualified jurisdiction. This should include the estimated number of persons (vehicles) that will pay congestion charges, as well as the likely number diverted to other travel times, routes, or other transportation services, such as transit.
(ix)*Research, Planning, and Experience To Date:* An application should indicate the prior work that participating parties (e.g., the candidate city or other jurisdictions) have already done to reduce congestion, including research, planning, and actual implementation of congestion related activities in the metropolitan area.
(x)*Other Time-Frame Considerations:* An application should indicate the dates during which applicants expect to conduct congestion reduction activities (e.g., a six-month trial from June 30, 2008 until December 31, 2008). If the applicant expects the activities to continue indefinitely, the application should indicate this fact. Similarly, if the pricing activity is adopted on a temporary, experimental basis and the applicant expects it to be voted on by citizens of the jurisdictions participating in an agreement with the Department or otherwise considered for continuation, the application should provide this information.
(xi)*Funding Support:* An application should indicate the estimated cost to implement the overall congestion reduction strategy. An application should also indicate the anticipated sources of those funds, including the amount requested to be covered by Federal sources.
(xii)*Contact Information:* An application should clearly indicate contact information, including name, organization, address, phone number, and e-mail address. The Department will use this information to inform parties of the Department's decision regarding selection of interested parties, as well as to contact parties in the event that the Department needs additional information about an application. E. Evaluation Criteria The Department will review and consider applications upon receipt, and will consider a variety of factors in reviewing applications seeking funding, including:
(i)The extent to which the congestion reduction plan is reasonably projected to reduce congestion from current levels on major highways and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as measured by projected travel speeds, “levels of service” or other objective measures of performance during the hours when the congestion reduction demonstration is in effect;
(ii)The extent to which the congestion reduction plan is reasonably projected to enable improvements in transit service on major highways and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as measured by projected reductions from current levels in scheduled running times or intervals between departures or other objective measures of performance during the hours when the congestion reduction plan is in effect;
(iii)The extent to which the congestion reduction plan demonstrates innovative and potentially far-reaching technology applications;
(iv)The project's national demonstration value; and
(v)The technical feasibility and political probability of the project being implemented in the near term. The Department reserves the right to solicit candidates for agreements described herein by means other than this Notice. The Department expects to implement the procedures and criteria set forth in this Notice; however, such procedures and criteria shall not be binding on the Department. Issued in Washington, DC on November 5, 2007. D.J. Gribbin, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation. [FR Doc. E7-22117 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ITS Joint Program Office; Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice. This notice announces, pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Pub. L. 72-363; 5 U.S.C. app. 2), a meeting of the Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS)Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC). The meeting will be held November 26, 2007, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and November 27, 2007, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC, in Conference Room #6 on the lobby level of the West Building. The ITSPAC, established under section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and chartered on February 24, 2006, was created to advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development and implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office, the ITSPAC will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the ITS program needs, objectives, plans, approaches, contents, and progress. The following is a summary of the meeting's tentative agenda. Day 1:
(1)Welcome and Introductions;
(2)ITS Program Overview;
(3)Identifying Trends in ITS (Panel Session); and
(4)A & A and Wrap-up. Day 2:
(1)Reports on Results of ITSPAC Member Interviews;
(2)Future Vision for ITS Program (Gaps and Opportunities, What Does Success Look Like?, Implications for the Future ITS Program);
(3)Summary of Outcomes (Prioritizing Trends/Programs in Terms of JPO Role and Opportunities); and
(4)Next Steps in Strategic Planning Activities. Since access to the U.S. DOT building is controlled, all persons who plan to attend the meeting must notify Ms. Marcia Pincus, the Committee Management Officer, at
(202)366-9230 not later than November 21, 2007. Individuals attending the meeting must report to the 1200 New Jersey Avenue entrance of the U.S. DOT Building for admission. Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is available. With the approval of Ms. Shelley Row, the Committee Designated Federal Official, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Non-committee members wishing to present oral statements or obtain information should contact Ms. Pincus. Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, Attention: Marcia Pincus, Room E33-401, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590 or faxed to
(202)493-2027. The ITS Joint Program Office requests that written comments be submitted prior to the meeting. Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Pincus at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting. Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and the General Service Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory committees. Issued in Washington, DC, on the 6th day of November, 2007. John Augustine, Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office. [FR Doc. E7-22148 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Shelby Avenue/Demonbreun Street (Gateway Boulevard) Corridor, Davidson County, TN AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)is issuing this notice to advise the public of its intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation
(TDOT)and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for the Shelby Avenue/Demonbreun Street (Gateway Boulevard) Corridor in Davidson County, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laurie S. Leffler, Assistant Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration-Tennessee Division Office, 640 Grassmere Park Road, Suite 112, Nashville, TN 37211. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation
(TDOT)and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental EIS) for Shelby Avenue/Demonbreun Street (Gateway Boulevard) Corridor. This project is intended to enhance east-west transportation linkages and improve accessibility to the current Nashville Central Business District
(CBD)and for future development in the CBD. A Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)(FHWA-TN-EIS-96-01-F) for the project was approved and released for public review on July 1, 1998, and a Record of Decision
(ROD)was issued on September 15, 1998. A portion of this project has been constructed. The Korean Veterans Memorial Bridge over the Cumberland River and the section of Gateway Boulevard from 1st Avenue South to 4th Avenue South have been completed and are open to traffic. The Supplemental EIS is being prepared to address the remaining unbuilt portion of the project's selected alignment (Alternative 8) between 4th Avenue South and 13th Avenue South. Under the selected alternative identified in the ROD, the structurally deficient Demonbreun Street Viaduct would have been demolished and a new structure would have been built across the Railroad Gulch from west of 11th Avenue to the project's western terminus at 13th Avenue. Since issuance of the ROD, the Demonbreun Street Viaduct has been rehabilitated and is no longer considered structurally deficient. As a result of major land use changes within the original project area since the ROD was issued, the environmental technical studies for the corridor must be updated before the remainder of the project between 4th and 13th Avenues can be advanced. Major new civic investments in the area include the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, the Symphony Hall, and Hilton Park. In addition, the previously industrialized Railroad Gulch is being redeveloped with new commercial and office spaces, along with several major high-rise residential developments under construction, and more land use changes in the Gulch anticipated in the near future. Letters describing the supplemental environmental studies and soliciting input will be sent to the appropriate Federal, State, regional and local agencies that have expressed or are known to have an interest or legal role in this proposal. Private organizations, citizens, and interest groups will have an opportunity to provide input into the development of the Supplemental EIS, and to identify issues that should be addressed. Notices of public meetings or public hearings will be given through various forums, providing the time and place of the meeting along with other relevant information. The Supplemental DEIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed action are identified and taken into account, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action and Supplemental EIS should be directed to FHWA at the address provided above. Laurie S. Leffler, Assistant Division Administrator, Nashville, TN. [FR Doc. E7-22126 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007-0008] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel CROWN JEWEL. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-0008 at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-0008. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W21-203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CROWN JEWEL is: *Intended Use:* “Leisure charter.” *Geographic Region:* “Washington, SE British Columbia”. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-19478). Dated: November 2, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Christine Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21970 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for EFTPS Primary Contact Information Form AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the EFTPS Primary Contact Information Form. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 14, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at
(202)622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* EFTPS Primary Contact Information Form. *OMB Number:* 1545-XXXX. *Abstract:* Currently, taxpayers can only obtain the Primary Contact Information Form by calling EFTPS Customer Service. The taxpayer calls EFTPS customer service requesting to change the contact information on their enrollment. As an alternative to faxing, we would like to offer the taxpayer the option of downloading it from *http://www.eftps.com* . This is a Treasury approved modification form that we fax to taxpayers when their contact information is invalid and re-mailing correspondence could result in an undeliverable piece of mail. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit organizations, and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 12,000. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 1 minute. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 204 hours. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: November 6, 2007. Glenn Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22138 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards will be held on December 3-4, 2007, in Room 630 at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The sessions will be from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on adverse health effects that may be associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, and to make recommendations on proposed standards and guidelines regarding VA benefit claims based upon exposure to ionizing radiation. The Committee agenda will include discussions of medical and scientific papers concerning the health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. On the basis of the discussions, the Committee may make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the relationship of certain diseases to exposure. On December 3, VA's Public Health and Environmental Hazards staff will make a presentation. On December 4, the session will focus on planning for future Committee activities and assignment of tasks among members. As open forum for oral statements from the public will be available for 30 minutes in the afternoon each day. People wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis and will be provided three minutes per statement. Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Bernice Green at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension Service, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at
(202)461-9723, or by fax at
(202)275-1728. Individuals should submit written questions or prepared statements for the Committee's review to Ms. Green at least five days prior to the meeting. Those who submit material may be asked for clarification prior to submission to the Committee. Dated: November 6, 2007. By Direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 07-5633 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
U.S. Code
16 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 40
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 240.11
  • Pub. L. 106-170
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 23 USC 202-204
  • Pub. L. 72-363
  • 41 CFR 102
  • Pub. L. 105-383
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 46 CFR 388
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of availability
C.F.R.§ 2.206
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 51.22
C.F.R.§ 50.90
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78c
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 40
Cite10 CFR 20
Cites 46 · 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.