Notices. Notice

24,606 words·~112 min read·/register/2007/12/05/07-5920

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

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request November 29, 2007. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the *RegInfo.gov* Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Brian A. Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), e-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of a previously approved collection. *Title:* National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0109. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 15,460. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 14,741. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The information obtained in this survey will be used by the Department of Labor, other government agencies, academic researchers, the news media, and the general public to understand the employment experiences and life-cycle transitions of men and women born in the years 1957 to 1964 and living in the United States when the survey began in 1979. For additional information, please see related notice published at 72 FR 52164 on September 12, 2007. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-23535 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB Approvals AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employee Benefits Security Administration

(EBSA)announces that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved certain collections of information, listed in the Supplementary Information below, following EBSA's submission of requests for such approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). This notice describes the information collections that have been approved or re-approved, their OMB control numbers, and their current expiration dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Christopher Cosby, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202)693-8410; Fax:

(202)219-4745. These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to display OMB control numbers and inform respondents of their legal significance after OMB has approved an agency's information collections. In accordance with those requirements, EBSA hereby notifies the public that the following information collections have been re-approved by OMB following EBSA's submission of an information collection request

(ICR)for extension of a prior approval: • OMB Control No. 1210-0101, Notice of Special Enrollment Rights Under Group Health Plans (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2009. • OMB Control No. 1210-0102, Notice of Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Under Group Health Plans (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2009. • OMB Control No. 1210-0103, Establishing Creditable Coverage under Group Health Plans (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2009. • OMB Control No. 1210-0065, Securities Lending by Employee Benefit Plans (PTE 2006-16). The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2009. • OMB Control No. 1210-0116, Annual Report for Multiemployer Welfare Arrangements (Form M-1). The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0125, ERISA Investment Manager Electronic Registration (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0039, Summary Description Requirements Under ERISA (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is March 31, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0053, Employee Benefit Plan Claims Procedures Under ERISA (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0064, Sale of Securities to Reduce Indebtedness of Party in Interest (PTE 80-63). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0092, Security Transactions with Broker-Dealers, Reporting Dealers and Banks (PTE 75-1). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0095, Residential Mortgage Financing Arrangements Involving Employee Benefit Plans (PTE 88-59). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0119, Petition For Finding Under Section 3(40) of ERISA (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0063, Sale of Individual Life Insurance or Annuity Contracts by a Plan (PTE 92-6). The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0079, Transactions Between Individual Retirement Accounts and Authorized Purchasers of American Eagle Coins (PTE 91-55). The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0094, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption Permitting Employee Benefit Plans to Invest in Customer Notes of Employers (PTE 85-68). The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0123, Notice Requirements of the Health Care Continuation Provisions (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0110, Annual Information Return/Report (Form 5500). The expiration date for this information collection is September 30, 2010. EBSA also notifies the public that the following new information collections have been approved by OMB following EBSA's submission of an information collection request (ICR): • OMB Control No. 1210-0129, HDCI 2 Survey of Group Health Plans (survey). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0130, Statutory Exemption for Cross-Trading (interim final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2010. • OMB Control No. 1210-0132, Default Investment Alternatives under Participant Directed Individual Account Plans (final regulation). The expiration date for this information collection October 31, 2010. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Publication of this notice satisfies this requirement with respect to the above-listed information collections, as provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(C). Dated: November 28, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-23554 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Proposed Information Collection Request for the ETA 586, Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages; Comment Request AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)2)A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, Form ETA 586. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice or by accessing: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Submit comments on or before February 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Keith P. Ribnick, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4516, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number

(202)693-3223 ( *this is not a toll-free number* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith P. Ribnick, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4516, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number

(202)693-3223 ( *this is not a toll-free number* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. *Background:* Section 3304(a)(9)(B), of the Internal Revenue Code

(IRC)of 1986, requires states to participate in an arrangement for combining employment and wages covered under the different state laws for the purpose of determining unemployed workers' entitlement to unemployment compensation. The Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages for combined wage claims (CWC), promulgated at 20 CFR 616, requires the prompt transfer of all relevant and available employment and wage data between states upon request. The Benefit Payment Promptness Standard, 20 CFR part 640, requires the prompt payment of unemployment compensation including benefits paid under the CWC arrangement. The ETA 586 report provides the ETA/Office of Workforce Security with information necessary to measure the scope and effect of the CWC program and monitor the performance of each state in responding to wage transfer data requests and the payment of benefits. II. *Desired Focus of Comments:* Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, ETA 586. The Department is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CWC program, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the addressee section of this notice. III. *Current Actions:* This information is necessary in order for ETA to analyze program performance, know when corrective action plans are needed and to target technical assistance resources. Without this report, it would be impossible for the ETA to identify claims and benefit activity under the CWC program and carry out the Secretary's responsibility for program oversight. *Type of Review:* Extension without change. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages. *OMB Number:* 1205-0029. *Agency Number:* ETA 586. *Recordkeeping:* 3 years. *Affected Public:* State Government. *Cite/Reference/Form:* ETA Handbook No. 401, ETA 586. *Total Respondents:* 53. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Total Responses:* 212. *Average Time per Response:* 4 hours. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 848. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* N/A. *Total Burden Cost:* $0. Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: November 28, 2007. Cheryl Atkinson, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security. [FR Doc. E7-23534 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Proposed Information Collection Request for the ETA 586, Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages; Comment Request AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)2)A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, Form ETA 586. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(202)693-3223 ( *this is not a toll-free number* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *I. Background:* Section 3304(a)(9)(B), of the Internal Revenue Code

(IRC)of 1986, requires states to participate in an arrangement for combining employment and wages covered under the different state laws for the purpose of determining unemployed workers' entitlement to unemployment compensation. The Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages for combined wage claims (CWC), promulgated at 20 CFR part 616, requires the prompt transfer of all relevant and available employment and wage data between states upon request. The Benefit Payment Promptness Standard, 20 CFR part 640, requires the prompt payment of unemployment compensation including benefits paid under the CWC arrangement. The ETA 586 report provides the ETA/Office of Workforce Security with information necessary to measure the scope and effect of the CWC program and monitor the performance of each state in responding to wage transfer data requests and the payment of benefits. *II. Desired Focus of Comments:* Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, ETA 586. The Department is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CWC program, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the addressee section of this notice. *III. Current Actions:* This information is necessary in order for ETA to analyze program performance, know when corrective action plans are needed and to target technical assistance resources. Without this report, it would be impossible for the ETA to identify claims and benefit activity under the CWC program and carry out the Secretary's responsibility for program oversight. *Type of Review:* Extension without change. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages. *OMB Number:* 1205-0029. *Agency Number:* ETA 586. *Recordkeeping:* 3 years. *Affected Public:* State Government. *Cite/Reference/Form:* ETA Handbook No. 401, ETA 586. *Total Respondents:* 53. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Total Responses:* 212. *Average Time per Response:* 4 hours. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 848. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* N/A. *Total Burden Cost:* $0. Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: November 28, 2007. Cheryl Atkinson, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security. [FR Doc. E7-23555 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-370] Duke Power Company LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-17, issued to Duke Power Company LLC (the licensee), for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (McGuire 2), located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The proposed amendment would allow the McGuire 2 auxiliary feedwater system

(AFW)“A” train to be declared inoperable for an additional 72 hours beyond the allowed 72 hours for piping modifications and testing of the Nuclear Service Water System. The evolution is scheduled to be performed within the allowed time (72 hours) for one train of AFW to be inoperable. However, implementation and schedule uncertainty could lead to exceeding the allowed 72 hours for the AFW system Technical Specification (TS). Therefore, in an effort to avoid an unnecessary Unit 2 shutdown or submittal of a request for enforcement discretion, McGuire 2 is requesting a one-time limited duration TS change. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner/requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, *Attention:* Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, *Attention:* Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submissions. For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment dated November 7, 2007, which is/are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John Stang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-23542 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-012 And 52-013] South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Combined License for South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 On September 27, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received a combined license

(COL)application from South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), dated September 20, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated September 26, 2007, October 15, 2007, October 18, 2007, November 8, 2007, November 12, 2007, November 13, 2007, and November 21, 2007, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and Subpart C, “Combined Licenses,” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 52, “License Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The site location is in Matagorda County, Texas and is identified as the South Texas Project Electrical Generating Station site. A notice of receipt and availability of this application was previously published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 60394) on October 24, 2007. The NRC staff has determined that STPNOC has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR part 52 that is acceptable for docketing. The docket numbers established for Units 3 and 4 are 52-012 and 52-013, respectively. The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the COL application. Docketing of the COL application does not preclude the NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. The Commission will conduct a hearing in accordance with subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications,” of 10 CFR part 2 and will receive a report on the COL application from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, “Referral to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).” If the Commission finds that the COL application meets the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the Commission will issue a COL, in the form and containing conditions and limitations that the Commission finds appropriate and necessary. In accordance with 10 CFR part 51, the Commission will also prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be included in a future **Federal Register** notice. Finally, the Commission will announce in a future **Federal Register** notice, the opportunity to petition for leave to intervene in the hearing required for this application by 10 CFR 52.85. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thomas A. Bergman, Deputy Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E7-23539 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499] STP Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) to withdraw its June 7, 2006, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, respectively, for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, located in Matagorda County. The proposed amendments would have revised the facility's Spent Fuel Pool and In-Containment Storage Area Criticality Analysis. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments published in the **Federal Register** on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53721). However, by letter dated November 28, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed request for amendments. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated June 7, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated November 28, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl F. Lyon, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-23536 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388] PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment as its evaluation of a request by PPL Susquehanna, LLC for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal power at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), from 3,489 megawatts-thermal

(MWt)to 3,952 MWt at each unit. This represents a power increase of approximately 13 percent thermal power. As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate

(EPU)Program, the NRC staff (the staff) will prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate would have a significant impact on the human environment. The staff did not identify any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, or the staff's independent review; therefore, the staff is documenting its environmental review in an Environmental Assessment. Also, in accordance with the position paper, the Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being published in the **Federal Register** with a 30-day public comment period. Environmental Assessment Plant Site and Environs SSES is located just west of the Susquehanna River approximately 5 miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In total, SSES majority owner and licensed operator, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL, the licensee), owns 2,355 acres of land on both sides of the Susquehanna River. Generally, this land is characterized by open deciduous woodlands interspersed with grasslands and orchards. Approximately 487 acres are used for generation facilities and associated maintenance facilities, laydown areas, parking lots, and roads. Approximately 130 acres are leased to local farmers. PPL maintains a 401-acre nature preserve, referred to as the Susquehanna Riverlands, which is located between SSES and the river; U.S. Route 11 separates the Susquehanna Riverlands from the plant site. The land on the west side of the river is about 1,573 acres and Gould Island, a 65-acre island just north of SSES on the Susquehanna River, is currently jointly owned between PPL (90%) and Allegheny Electric Cooperative (10%). Also, PPL currently owns an additional 717 acres of mostly undeveloped land, which includes natural recreational, and wildlife areas on the east side of the river (Reference 10). SSES is a two-unit plant with General Electric boiling-water reactors and generators. NRC approved the Unit 1 operating license on July 17, 1982, and commercial operation began June 8, 1983. The Unit 2 operating license was issued on March 3, 1984, and commercial operation began February 12, 1985. Units 1 and 2 both currently operate at 3,489 MWt (Reference 8). The units share a common control room, refueling floor, turbine operating deck, radwaste system, and other auxiliary systems (Reference 9). SSES uses a closed-cycle heat dissipation system (two natural-draft cooling towers) to transfer waste heat from the circulating water system to the atmosphere. The circulating water and the service water systems draw water from, and discharge to, the Susquehanna River. The river intake structure is located on the western bank of the river and consists of two water entrance chambers with 1-inch, on-center vertical trash bars and 3/8 -inch-mesh traveling screens. A low-pressure screen-wash system periodically operates to release aquatic organisms and debris impinged on the traveling screens to a pit with debris removal equipment that collects material into a dumpster for offsite disposal. Cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, and other permitted effluents are discharged to the Susquehanna River through a buried pipe leading to a submerged discharge diffuser structure, approximately 600 feet downstream of the river intake structure. The diffuser pipe is 200-feet long, with the last 120 feet containing 72 four-inch portals that direct the discharge at a 45-degree angle upwards and downstream. Warm circulating water from the cooling towers can be diverted to the river intake structure to prevent icing; this usually occurs from November through March on an as-needed basis (Reference 10). For the specific purpose of connecting SSES to the regional transmission system, there are approximately 150 miles of transmission line corridors that occupy 3,341 acres of land. The corridors pass through land that is primarily agricultural and forested with low population densities. Two 500-kilovolt

(kV)lines and one 230-kV line connect SSES to the electric grid, with approximately 2.3 miles of short ties in the immediate plant vicinity to connect SSES to the 230-kV system. The Stanton-Susquehanna #2 230-kV transmission line corridor runs northeast from the plant for approximately 30 miles and ranges from 100-400 feet wide. The Susquehanna-Wescosville-Alburtis 500-kV transmission line corridor ranges from 100 to 350 feet wide and runs generally southeast from the plant for approximately 76 miles; the Sunbury-Susquehanna #2 500-kV transmission line corridor is approximately 325 feet wide and runs 44 miles west-southwest from the plant. The transmission line corridors cross the following Pennsylvania counties: Luzerne (the location of SSES), Carbon, Columbia, Lehigh, Northampton, Northumberland, Montour, and Snyder. These transmission lines are currently owned by PPL Electric Utilities with the exception of 42.3 miles of the 44.2 mile Sunbury-Susquehanna #2 500-kV line which is currently owned by Allegheny Electric Cooperative. All of these lines however, are integral to the larger transmission system, and as such PPL Electric Utilities plans to operate and maintain these lines indefinitely. Except for the short ties on the plant site, the lines would likely remain a permanent part of the transmission system even after SSES is decommissioned (Reference 10). Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated October 11, 2006, PPL proposed amendments to the operating licenses for SSES Units 1 and 2 to increase the maximum thermal power level of both units by approximately 13 percent thermal power, from 3,489 MWt to 3,952 MWt (Reference 8). The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power level more than 7 percent above the original licensed maximum power level. This amendment would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase, which would increase the flow of steam to the turbine. This would result in the increase in production of electricity and the amount of waste heat delivered to the condenser, and an increase in the temperature of the water being discharged to the Susquehanna River. PPL plans to implement the proposed EPU in two phases to obtain optimal fuel utilization and to ensure that manageable core thermal limits are maintained. The core thermal power level of Unit 2 would be increased by approximately 13 percent following the spring 2009 refueling outage. Unit 1's core thermal power level would be increased in two stages of about 7 percent each during the spring 2008 and spring 2010 refueling outages (Reference 8). The original operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 authorized operation up to a maximum power level of 3,293 MWt per unit. Since the units went online, SSES has implemented two power uprates. Stretch uprates (4.5 percent each) were implemented in 1994 (Unit 2) and 1995 (Unit 1), increasing the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1 and 2 from 3,293 MWt to 3,441 MWt. Two separate NRC environmental assessments each resulted in a finding of no significant impact and determined that these actions “* * * would have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.” These decisions were published in the **Federal Register** , Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990-12992 and Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278-3280 (Reference 12, 13). In 2001, a Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

(MUR)uprate of 1.4 percent increased the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1 and 2 to 3,489 MWt. The NRC environmental assessment for this action also resulted in a finding of no significant impact and was published in the **Federal Register** , Vol. 66, No. 122, pp. 33716-33717 (Reference 14). The Need for the Proposed Action SSES is within the transmission area controlled by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). PJM operates the largest regional transmission territory in the U.S., currently serving a 164,260-square-mile area in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, representing approximately 163,806 megawatts electrical

(MWe)of generating capacity. PJM has forecasted that the summer unrestricted peak load in the Mid-Atlantic geographic zone where SSES is located would grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent for the next 10 years. This represents an increase in peak load of almost 6,000 MWe from 2005 to 2010, when the proposed SSES EPU is scheduled to be completed. The proposed EPU would add an average of 205 MWe of base load generation to the grid from both Units 1 and 2. This added electricity is projected to be enough to meet the power needs of approximately 195,000 homes and is forecasted to be produced for the PJM grid at a cost lower than the projected market price (Reference 9). PJM uses a queue system to manage requests to add or remove generation from the regional transmission system. SSES submitted an application to PJM for the EPU additional generation on May 19, 2004. The PJM Interconnection Service Agreements and Construction Service Agreements were signed for Unit 2 on July 7, 2005, and for Unit 1 on January 20, 2006 (Reference 9). Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for SSES, the staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement

(FES)for the operation of SSES, which was issued by the NRC in June 1981. This Environmental Assessment summarizes the radiological and non-radiological impacts in the environment that may result from the proposed action. Non-Radiological Impacts Land Use Impacts Potential land use impacts due to the proposed EPU include impacts from construction and plant modifications at SSES. While some plant components would be modified, most plant changes related to the proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed part of the site. No new construction would occur outside of existing facilities, and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required to support the proposed EPU with the following exceptions. The 230-kV switchyard located on PPL property across the river from the station, and the 500-kV switchyard located on the plant site would both be expanded to house additional capacitor banks. The site road adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would be moved to accommodate this expansion. Both switchyard modifications would require no land disturbance outside the power block area. Relocation of the road adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would occur in a previously developed area of the plant site, resulting in no or little impact to land use. In addition, the turbine building may be expanded to allow for the installation of condensate filters, and additional aboveground storage tanks may be required to support cooling tower basin acid injection. If required, storage tank installation and turbine building expansion would be located in the developed part of the site (Reference 8, 9). An above ground shielded storage facility will be constructed onsite within the Protected Area to store the original steam dryers. Existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during construction and plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at SSES. Also, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines (no new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission corridors, switch yards, or substations. Because land use conditions would not change at SSES and because any disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas within the plant site, there would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources (except during outside construction) and historic and archeological resources in the vicinity of SSES. The impacts of continued operation of SSES Units 1 and 2 combined with the proposed EPU would be bounded by the scope of the original FES for operation, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,” dated 1981, and therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, and historic and archaeological resources from the proposed EPU. Non-Radiological Waste SSES generates both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)Subtitle C, SSES is classified as a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, including spent batteries, solvents, corrosives, and paint thinners. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's *Envirofacts Warehouse* database, there are no RCRA violations listed for SSES related to the management of these hazardous wastes (Reference 11). Non-hazardous waste is managed by SSES's current program and includes municipal waste, maintenance waste, wood, and non-friable asbestos. Plant modifications necessary for the proposed EPU may result in additional hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation; however, all wastes would continue to be managed by the waste management program currently in place at SSES, which is designed to minimize hazardous waste generation and promote recycling of waste whenever possible (Reference 9) and subject to state (commonwealth) and Federal oversight. As such, the staff concludes there would be no impacts from additional non-radiological waste generated as a result of the proposed EPU. Cooling Tower Impacts SSES operates two natural draft cooling towers to transfer waste heat from the circulating water system (which cools the main condensers) to the atmosphere. No additional cooling tower capacity is planned to accommodate the proposed EPU. However, additional aboveground storage tanks could be required to support cooling tower basin acid injection. If built, these tanks would be located in the developed part of the plant site (Reference 9). Aesthetic impacts associated with cooling tower operation following implementation of the proposed action would be similar to those associated with current operating conditions and include noise and visual impacts from the plume such as fogging and icing. No significant increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower operation following the proposed EPU. The FES for operation evaluated the potential noise impacts of operation of SSES and determined that pump and motor noise from the cooling water system would not exceed ambient (baseline) levels in offsite areas and that cooling tower noise would be audible for no more than a mile offsite to the west, southwest, and southeast of the station. PPL conducted an initial noise survey in 1985 after commercial operation of both units began, and again in 1995 following the stretch uprate. The 1995 noise measurements were similar to those recorded in 1985, and PPL received no noise complaints following implementation of the stretch uprate. The staff concludes that the proposed EPU, like the stretch uprate, would not produce measurable changes in the character, sources, or intensity of noises generated by the station's cooling water system or cooling towers (Reference 9). Conclusions reached in NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),” Volumes 1 and 2, dated 1996, apply to the proposed action regarding cooling tower impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. The GEIS concluded that natural-draft cooling towers release drift and moisture high into the atmosphere where they are dispersed over long distances, and increased fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and relative humidity have little potential to affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. Impacts associated with continued cooling tower operation at SSES following the proposed EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and icing would not change significantly from current impacts. Therefore, the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts associated with cooling tower operation for the proposed action. Transmission Facility Impacts The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed EPU would not require any new transmission lines and would not require changes in the maintenance and operation of existing transmission lines or substations. Corridor maintenance practices (including vegetative management) would not be affected by the proposed EPU. The proposed EPU would require the installation of additional capacitor banks in the 500- and 230-kV switchyards, and PPL plans to conduct a power delivery environmental risk identification evaluation prior to these installations. The capacitor bank installations are the only modification of transmission facilities that would accompany the proposed EPU. The only operational change to transmission lines resulting from the proposed EPU would be increased current; voltage would remain unchanged. As PPL states in its October 11, 2006, application, page 7-2, “increased current may cause transmission lines to sag more, but there would still be adequate clearance between energized conductors and the ground to prevent electrical shock.” Additionally, PPL has evaluated all related transmission facilities and found these facilities to be within acceptable design parameters (Reference 9). The National Electric Safety Code

(NESC)provides design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamps. As stated above, there would be an increase in current passing through the transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. The higher electrical current passing through the transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field strength. However, with the proposed increase in power level, the impact of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the offsite transmission lines would not be expected to increase significantly over the current impact. The transmission lines meet the applicable shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Therefore, even with the small increase in current attributable to the proposed EPU, adequate protection is provided against hazards from electric shock. The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action would not change significantly from the impacts associated with current plant operation. There would be no physical modifications to the transmission lines, transmission line corridor maintenance practices would not change, there would be no changes to transmission line corridors or vertical clearances, electric current passing through the transmission lines would increase only slightly, and capacitor bank modifications would occur only within the existing power blocks. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the proposed action. Water Use Impacts Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include hydrological alterations to the Susquehanna River and changes to plant water supply. SSES uses cooling water from the Susquehanna River and discharges water back to the river at a point approximately 600 feet downstream of the intake structure. River water enters the plant cooling system via cooling tower basins and provides water to the circulating water and service water systems. SSES uses a closed-cycle, natural-draft cooling tower heat dissipation system to remove waste heat from the main condensers; cooling tower blowdown is discharged back to the Susquehanna River (Reference 9). No changes to the cooling water intake system are expected during the proposed action. While the volume of intake embayments would not change, the intake flow rate would increase from an average of 58.3 million gallons per day

(gpd)to an average of 60.9 million gpd, as the amount of time all four river intake pumps operate would increase. This represents a 4.5-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the Susquehanna River and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the river significantly (Reference 9). The maximum withdrawal rate possible as a result of the proposed EPU is 65.4 million gpd, which was calculated using worst-case meteorological conditions (NRC 2006). This represents a 12.2-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the river and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the river significantly. The amount of consumptive water usage due to evaporation and drift of cooling water through the cooling towers is expected to increase from a monthly average of 38 million gpd to 44 million gpd. This represents a 15.7-percent increase over current usage. Based on the Susquehanna River's average annual flow rate of 9,427 million gpd, the proposed EPU would result in an average annual loss of 0.5 percent of river water at that location. During low-flow conditions, which usually occur in late August, the average evaporative loss at SSES may approach 1 percent of the low-flow river value (Reference 9). The staff concludes that the amount of water consumed by SSES under the proposed EPU conditions would not result in significant alterations to Susquehanna River flow patterns at this location. Consumptive water usage at SSES is regulated by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), an independent agency that manages water usage along the entire length of the Susquehanna River. The current permit granted for SSES operation by SRBC is for average monthly consumptive water usage up to 40 million gpd (permit #19950301 EPUL-0578). In December 2006, PPL submitted an application to SRBC to eliminate the 40 million gpd average monthly limit and to approve a maximum daily river water withdrawal of 66 million gpd (Reference 15). SRBC is currently reviewing PPL's application and will make a decision independent of the NRC whether to allow the increased consumptive water usage required to implement the proposed EPU. The SRBC permit is required for plant operation, and PPL must adhere to the prescribed water usage limits and any applicable mitigative measures. No changes to the cooling water intake system and the volume of intake embayment are expected for the proposed EPU, but the average intake flow would increase by 4.5 percent. The staff concludes this increase would not alter significantly the hydrology of the Susquehanna River. The proposed EPU would result in a small increase in the amount of Susquehanna River consumptive water usage due to evaporative losses. However, the increased loss would be insignificant relative to the flow of the Susquehanna River, and SRBC would continue to regulate SSES's consumptive water usage. With respect to the proposed action, the staff concludes there would be no significant impact to the hydrological pattern on the Susquehanna River, and there would be no significant impact to the plant's consumptive water supply. Discharge Impacts Potential impacts to the Susquehanna River from the SSES discharge include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation. These discharge-related impacts apply to the region near the discharge structure due to the large volume of cooling water released to the river. However, since the proposed EPU would result in no significant changes in discharge volume or velocity, there would be no expected changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or sedimentation related to the proposed EPU. Surface and wastewater discharges at SSES are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No. PA0047325), which is issued and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP)Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. The DEP periodically reviews and renews the NPDES permit; SSES's current NPDES permit was effective beginning September 1, 2005, and is valid through August 31, 2010. The NPDES permit sets water quality standards for all plant discharges to the Susquehanna River, including limits on free available chlorine, total zinc, and total chromium in cooling tower blowdown. According to Pennsylvania's Environmental Facility Application Compliance Tracking System (eFACTS), there are no past or current NPDES violations listed for SSES (Reference 4). While the proposed EPU would increase the amount of cooling tower blowdown to the Susquehanna River, there is no expected increase in associated biocides, solvents, or dissolved solids entering the river, and SSES would continue to adhere to the water quality standards set within the NPDES permit. The NPDES permit does not contain thermal discharge temperature limits, but SSES must adhere to Susquehanna River temperature limits prescribed by Pennsylvania Code water quality standards (Reference 1). Thermal discharge effects and applicable Pennsylvania Code water quality standards will be discussed further in the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section. No expected changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or sedimentation are expected as a result of the proposed EPU. Surface and wastewater discharges to the Susquehanna River would continue to be regulated by the Pennsylvania DEP. Any discharge-related impacts for the proposed action would be similar to current impacts from plant operation, and therefore, the staff concludes the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on the Susquehanna River from cooling water discharge. Impacts on Aquatic Biota The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed EPU include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The aquatic species evaluated in this draft Environmental Assessment are those in the vicinity of the SSES cooling water intake and discharge structures along the Susquehanna River, and those that occur in water bodies crossed by transmission lines associated with SSES. The licensee has conducted aquatic biota studies of the Susquehanna River upstream and downstream of SSES since 1971. The studies assessed water quality, algae (periphyton and photoplankton), macroinvertebrates, and fish from 1971 to 1994, with annual fish studies beginning in 1976. The Susquehanna River in the vicinity of SSES has both coolwater and warmwater fishes, primarily consisting of minnows ( *Cyprinidae* ), suckers ( *Catastomidae* ), catfish ( *Icaluridae* ), sunfish ( *Centrarchidae* ), and darters and perch ( *Percidae* ). There are also records of smallmouth bass ( *Micropterus dolomieu* ), walleye ( *Sander vitreus* ), and channel catfish ( *Ictalurus punctatus* ) found in proximity to SSES. Monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates and biofouling mollusks was also included in the studies. No zebra mussels ( *Dreissena polymorpha* ) have been recorded at SSES or in the vicinity of the North Branch of the Susquehanna River; however, Asiatic clams ( *Corbicula fluminea* ) have been found in the North Branch of the Susquehanna River for several years and were collected by scuba divers in the SSES engineered safeguard service water spray pond in July 2005. No sensitive aquatic species are known to occur at or near SSES (Reference 9); however, the 1981 FES for operation indicated that two endangered and two rare fish listed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (now the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission) have ranges that fall within SSES transmission line corridors (NRC 1981). PPL has provided the staff with a vegetative management program for its transmission line corridors that states no herbicides shall be applied within 50 feet of any water body, except stump treatments and herbicides approved for watershed/aquatic use. Additionally, the transmission line corridor maintenance activities in the vicinity of stream and river crossings employ procedures to minimize erosion and shoreline disturbance while encouraging vegetative cover (Reference 7). In addition to setting water quality parameters for surface and wastewater discharges, the SSES NPDES permit (PA-0047325) also regulates entrainment and impingement of aquatic species at SSES. Because SSES uses a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling water system, entrainment and impingement impacts on aquatic biota resulting from the proposed EPU are not expected to be significant. The proposed EPU would require additional water withdrawal from the Susquehanna River for increased cooling tower evaporative losses and other plant needs. The average increase in daily water withdrawal from the Susquehanna River would be approximately 4.4 percent, from 58.3 million gpd to 60.9 million gpd. PPL also reported a maximum daily water withdrawal estimate of 65.4 million gpd (an 11.2 percent increase), which would only occur during worst-case meteorological conditions (Reference 15). Under the proposed EPU conditions, the average increase in water withdrawal would result in the impingement of approximately one additional fish per day (from 21 to 22) and entrainment of approximately 15,972 additional larvae per day (from 363,000 to 378,000) during spawning season. These small increases in entrainment and impingement related to the proposed EPU would result in no significant impact to the Susquehanna River aquatic community (Reference 9). Effective July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended the Phase II rule (NRC 2007b). As a result, all permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that are developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis, rather than best technology available. Best Professional Judgment is used by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit writers to develop technology-based permit conditions on a case-by-case basis using all reasonably available and relevant data. Any site-specific mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process would result in a reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations. The NPDES permit issued by the Pennsylvania DEP does not specify thermal discharge limits; however, the amount and temperature of heated effluent discharged to the Susquehanna River is governed by Section 93.7 of Pennsylvania Code, which places restrictions on waters designated “Warm Water Fisheries.” During the July 1-August 31 time frame, the highest river water temperature allowable is 87 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with lower temperature limits during other parts of the year (Reference 1). In the 1981 FES for operation, the NRC performed an analysis of SSES blowdown plume characteristics. The analysis concluded that blowdown temperatures during all four seasons were lower than the maximum river temperatures set by Section 93.7. The location and design of the SSES cooling water discharge structure and the high flow rate of the Susquehanna River allow for sufficient mixing and cooling of heated effluent. Using conservative assumptions similar to those used in the original FES thermal plume analysis, PPL calculated that after implementation of the proposed EPU, blowdown temperatures would increase by 2 °F. This would result in a 0.6 °F increase in the maximum expected temperature at the edge of the thermal plume mixing zone (maximum temperature 86.5 °F). The staff concludes that the increase in thermal discharge temperature and volume resulting from the proposed EPU would still fall within the guidelines prescribed by the original FES for operation (NRC 1981). Liquid effluents discharged to the Susquehanna River include cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, liquid rad waste treatment effluents, and surface and wastewater discharges. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regulates these discharges through SSES's NPDES permit, which sets water quality standards for all plant discharges to the Susquehanna River. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River conducted for the licensee indicate that river water quality in the vicinity of SSES continues to improve. From 1973 through 2002, there was a significant decreasing trend in turbidity, sulfate, total iron, and total suspended solids; and a significant increasing trend in river temperature, pH, total alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen. A reduction in acid-mine drainage pollutants and improvements in upstream waste-water treatment have likely contributed to the overall-improved river ecosystem health (Ecology III 2003). SSES operates a closed-cycle cooling water system, and as such, the staff concludes that impacts to aquatic biota in the Susquehanna River from entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge resulting from the proposed EPU would not be significant. The Pennsylvania DEP will continue to regulate the performance of the SSES cooling water system and surface and wastewater discharges through the NPDES permit and Pennsylvania Code designed to protect warm water fisheries. Furthermore, SSES transmission line corridor maintenance practices would not change upon implementation of the proposed EPU; thus, the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts to aquatic species associated with transmission line corridor maintenance. Impacts on Terrestrial Biota Potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed EPU include impacts due to transmission line corridor maintenance and any planned new construction. The natural communities at SSES and in the surrounding areas consist of river floodplain forest, upland forest, marshes, and wetlands. The river floodplain forest at SSES is dominated by silver maple ( *Acer saccharinum* ), river birch ( *Betula nigra* ), and Northern red oak ( *Quercus rubra* ). The upland forest is dominated by Virginia pine ( *Pinus virginiana* ), sweet birch ( *Betula lenta* ), flowering dogwood ( *Cornaceae cornus* ), white oak ( *Fagaceae quercus* ), Northern red oak, black oak ( *Q. velutina* ), and yellow poplar ( *Liriodendron tulipifera* ). The marshes are dominated by a variety of emergent vegetation such as sedges ( *Cyperaceae* ), bulrush and cattail ( *Typhaceae* ), and cutgrass ( *Poaceae* ) (Reference 9). Although wetlands do occur at the SSES site, none of the wetlands would be affected by the proposed action. As stated in the Cooling Tower Impacts section, no significant increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower operation following the proposed EPU, and as such, biota would not be impacted. The staff agrees with the conclusions reached in the GEIS regarding bird collisions with cooling towers: Avian mortality due to collisions with cooling towers is considered to be of small significance if the losses do not destabilize local populations of any species and there is no noticeable impairment of its function with the local ecosystem (NRC 1996). The proposed action would not involve new land disturbance outside of the existing power block or developed areas, and as discussed in the Transmission Facilities Impacts section, there would be no changes to transmission line corridor maintenance practices. Thus, the staff concludes that there would be no significant impacts to terrestrial species or their habitat associated with the proposed action, including transmission line right-of-way maintenance. Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and terrestrial biota sections of this Environmental Assessment. These impacts include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and impacts from transmission line right-of-way maintenance for aquatic and terrestrial species. A review of databases maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)and the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program indicate that several animal and plant species that are Federally or Commonwealth-listed as threatened or endangered occur in the vicinity of SSES and its associated transmission line corridors. Informal consultation with FWS Pennsylvania Field Office regarding the proposed EPU's potential impact on threatened or endangered species is ongoing. Four species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and 24 species that are listed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as threatened or endangered occur within the counties where SSES and its associated transmission line corridors are located. These species are listed below in Table 1. Table 1.—Endangered and Threatened Species That Could Occur in the Vicinity of SSES or in Counties Crossed by SSES Transmission Lines Scientific name Common name Federal status* State status* Mammals: Neotoma magister Allegheny woodrat — T Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E E Myotis leibii Small-footed myotis — T Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel — T Birds: Ardia alba Great egret — E Asio flammeus Short-eared owl — E Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper — T Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern — E Chlidonias niger Black tern — E Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren — T Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon — E Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T E Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern — E Pandion haliaetus Osprey — T Reptiles: Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T E Invertebrates: Enodia anthedon Northern peary-eye — VS Euphydryas phaeton Baltimore checkerspot — VS Poanes massasoit Mulberry wing — V Polites mystic Long dash — V Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary — E Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite fritillary — VS *T = Threatened, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, VS = Vulnerable to Apparently Secure — = Not Listed ( *Sources:* References 3, 5, 6, 16). The proposed EPU would involve no new land disturbance, and any construction necessary would be minimal and would only occur in previously developed areas of SSES. Additionally, no changes would be made to the transmission line corridor maintenance program, including vegetative maintenance. As such, the staff concludes that the proposed action would have no significant impact on Federally or Commonwealth-listed species in the vicinity of SSES and its transmission line corridors. Social and Economic Impacts Potential socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed EPU include changes in the payments in lieu of taxes for Luzerne County and changes in the size of the workforce at SSES. Currently SSES employs approximately 1,200 full-time staff, 89 percent of whom live in Luzerne or Columbia Counties, and approximately 260 contract employees. During outages, approximately 1,400 personnel provide additional support (Reference 9). The proposed EPU is not expected to increase the size of the permanent SSES workforce, since proposed plant modifications would be phased in during planned outages when SSES has the support of 1,400 additional workers. In addition, the proposed EPU would not require an increase in the size of the SSES workforce during future refueling outages. Accordingly, the proposed EPU would not have any measurable effect on annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties or on community services (Reference 9). According to the 2000 Census, Luzerne and Columbia County populations were about 2.9 and 2.0 percent minority, respectively, which is well below the Commonwealth minority population of 13.2 percent. The poverty rates in 1999 for individuals living in Luzerne and Columbia Counties are 11.1 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively, which are slightly higher than the Commonwealth's average of 11.0 percent. Due to the lack of significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action, the proposed EPU would not have any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations (Reference 9). In the past, PPL paid real estate taxes to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for power generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. Under authority of the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax Act (PURTA), real estate taxes collected from all utilities (water, telephone, electric, and railroads) were redistributed to the taxing jurisdictions within the Commonwealth. In Pennsylvania, these jurisdictions include counties, cities, townships, boroughs, and school districts. The distribution of PURTA funds was determined by formula and was not necessarily based on the individual utility's effect on a particular government entity (Reference 9). In 1996, Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act became law, which allows consumers to choose among competitive suppliers of electrical power. As a result of utility restructuring, Act 4 of 1999 revised the tax base assessment methodology for utilities from the depreciated book value to the market value of utility property. Additionally, as of January 1, 2000, PPL was required to begin paying real estate taxes directly to local jurisdictions, ceasing payments to the Commonwealth's PURTA fund. PPL currently pays annual real estate taxes to the Berwick Area School District, Luzerne County, and Salem Township (Reference 9). The proposed EPU could increase SSES's value, thus resulting in a larger allocation of the payment to the Berwick Area School District, Luzerne County, and Salem Township. Because the proposed EPU would increase the economic viability of SSES, the probability of early plant retirement would be reduced. Early plant retirement would be expected to have negative impacts on the local economy and the community by reducing tax payments and limiting local employment opportunities for the long term (Reference 9). Since the proposed EPU would not have any measurable effect on the annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties or on community services and due to the lack of significant environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations, there would be no significant socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU could have a positive effect on the regional economy because of the potential increase in the tax payments received by the Berwick Area School District, Luzerne County, and Salem Township, due to the potential increase in the book value of SSES, and the increased long-term viability of SSES. Summary The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, cooling tower operation, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facility operation, or social and economic factors. No other non-radiological impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 2 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES. Table 2.—Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts Land Use No significant land-use modifications. Non-Radiological Waste Any additional hazardous and non-hazardous waste as a result of the proposed EPU would continue to be regulated by RCRA and managed by SSES's waste management program. Cooling Tower Impacts associated with continued cooling tower operation following the proposed EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and icing would not change significantly from current impacts. Transmission Facilities No physical modifications to transmission lines; lines meet electrical shock safety requirements; no changes to transmission line corridor maintenance; small increase in electrical current would cause small increase in electromagnetic field around transmission lines; no changes to voltage. Water Use No configuration change to intake structure; increase in cooling water flow rate; increase in consumptive use due to evaporation; SRBC would continue to regulate consumptive water usage at SSES. Discharge Small increase in discharge temperature and volume; no increases in other effluents; discharge would remain within Pennsylvania water quality limits, and SSES would continue to operate under NPDES permit regulations. Aquatic Biota Small increases in entrainment and impingement are not expected to affect the Susquehanna River aquatic biota; increase in volume and temperature of thermal discharge would remain within original FES guidelines and below Pennsylvania Code Section 93.7 temperature limits; SSES would continue to operate under NPDES permit regulations with regard to entrainment and impingement. Terrestrial Biota No land disturbance or changes to transmission line corridor maintenance are expected; therefore, there would be no significant effects on terrestrial species or their habitat. Threatened and Endangered Species As evaluated for aquatic and terrestrial biota, no significant impacts are expected on protected species or their habitat. Social and Economic No change in size of SSES labor force required for plant operation or for planned outages; proposed EPU could increase payments to Luzerne County and book value of SSES; there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. Radiological Impacts Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts SSES uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that the discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20, and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 (Reference 9). Minimal changes will be made to the waste treatment systems to handle the additional waste expected to be generated by the proposed EPU; the installation of an additional condensate filter and demineralizer. The gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes are discussed individually (Reference 9). Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment system processes and controls the release of small quantities of radioactive noble gases, halogens, tritium, and particulate materials to the environment. The gaseous waste management system includes the offgas system and various building ventilation systems. The single year highest annual releases of radioactive material, for the time period 2000-2005 were; 2002 for noble gases with 9.68 Curies, 2001 for particulates and iodines with 0.0074 Curies, and 2004 for tritium with 160 Curies (Reference 9). The licensee has estimated that the amount of radioactive material released in gaseous effluents would increase in proportion to the increase in power level (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The offsite dose to a member of the public, including the additional radioactive material that would be released from the proposed EPU, is calculated to still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff concludes the increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release following implementation of the proposed EPU would not be significant. Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment system processes and controls the release of radioactive liquid effluents to the environment, such that the dose to individuals offsite are maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The liquid radioactive waste system is designed to process and purify the waste and then recycle it for use within the plant, or to discharge it to the environment as radioactive liquid waste effluent in accordance with facility procedures which comply with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Federal regulations. The single year highest radioactive liquid releases, for the time period 2000-2005 were: 2005 at 1,470,000 gallons, 2003 with 70.25 Curies of tritium, 2000 with 36.95 Curies of fission and activation products, and 2002 with 0.0003 Curies of dissolved and entrained gases (Reference 9). Even though the EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive fission and activation products and a larger volume of liquid to be processed, the licensee performed an evaluation which shows that the liquid radwaste treatment system would remove all but a small amount of the increased radioactive material. The licensee estimated that the volume of radioactive liquid effluents released to the environment and the amount of radioactive material in the liquid effluents would increase slightly (less than 1 percent) due to the proposed EPU. Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a member of the public from the radioactive releases described above, increased by 1 percent, would still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would not be a significant environmental impact from the additional amount of radioactive material generated following implementation of the proposed EPU. Solid Radioactive Wastes The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages, and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to shipment offsite for permanent disposal. The volume of solid radioactive waste generated varied from about 2500 to almost 8000 cubic feet (ft 3 ) per year in the time period 2000-2005; the largest volume generated was 7980 ft 3 in 2003. The annual amount of radioactive material in the waste generated varied from 2500 to almost 190,000 Curies during that same period. The largest amount of radioactive material generated in the solid waste was 189,995 Curies in 2000 (Reference 9). The proposed EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive fission and activation products which would require more frequent replacement or regeneration of radwaste treatment system filters and demineralizer resins. The licensee has estimated that the volume of solid radioactive waste would increase by approximately 11 percent due to the proposed EPU (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The increased volume of the solid waste would still be bounded by the estimate of 10,400 ft 3 in the 1981 FES for operation. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact from the increased volume of solid radwaste generated due to the proposed EPU would not be significant. The licensee did not provide an estimate of the increase in the amount of radioactive solid waste in terms of Curies. However, for 4 of the 6 years between 2000 and 2005, the annual amount of radioactive material in the solid waste generated varied from 2500 to 5779 Curies (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff estimated that the amount of radioactive material in the solid waste would increase by 20 percent, proportional to the proposed EPU power increase. In 2000 and 2003, work was done that generated large amounts of used irradiated components, accounting for 98 percent and 92 percent, respectively, of the radioactive material generated in solid radwaste. Such work and the solid radwaste generated by that work occasionally occurs at SSES, but the range of 2500 to 5779 Curies is more typical (Reference 9). The annual average of radioactive material generated after the proposed EPU would still be bounded by the estimate of 5500 Curies in the 1981 FES for operation. In addition, the licensee must continue to meet all NRC and Department of Transportation regulations for transportation of solid radioactive waste. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact from the increased amount of radioactive material in the solid radwaste due to the proposed EPU would not be significant. The licensee estimates that the EPU would require replacement of 10 percent more fuel assemblies at each refueling. This increase in the amount of spent fuel being generated would require an increase in the number of dry fuel storage casks used to store spent fuel. The current dry fuel storage facility at SSES has been evaluated and can accommodate the increase (Reference 9). Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant environmental impacts resulting from storage of the additional fuel assemblies. In-Plant Radiation Doses The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive material and higher radiation dose rates in the restricted areas at SSES. SSES's radiation protection staff will continue monitoring dose rates and would make adjustments in shielding, access requirements, decontamination methods, and procedures as necessary to minimize the dose to workers. In addition, occupational dose to individual workers must be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as reasonably achievable (Reference 9). The licensee has estimated that the work necessary to implement the proposed EPU at the plant would also increase the collective occupational radiation dose at the plant to approximately 230 person-rem per year until the implementation is completed in 2009. After the implementation is completed, the licensee estimates that the annual collective occupational dose would be in the range of 200 person-rem, roughly 12 percent higher than the current dose of 182 person-rem in 2005 and 184 person-rem in 2006 (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that these estimates are acceptable. The staff notes that SSES is allowed a maximum of 3,200 person-rem per year as provided in the 1981 Final Environmental Statement—Operating Stage. Therefore, the staff concludes that the increase in occupational exposure would not be significant. Direct Radiation Doses Offsite Offsite radiation dose consists of three components: Gaseous, liquid, and direct gamma radiation. As previously discussed under the Gaseous Radiological Waste and Liquid Radiological Waste sections, the estimated doses to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents after the proposed EPU is implemented, would be well within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The final component of offsite dose is from direct gamma radiation from radioactive waste stored temporarily onsite, including spent fuel in dry cask storage, and radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the steam from the reactor passing through the turbine system. The high energy radiation from nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by the air above the facility and represents an additional public radiation dose pathway known as “skyshine.” The licensee estimated that the offsite radiation dose from skyshine would increase linearly with the increase in power level from the proposed EPU (20 percent); more nitrogen-16 is produced at the higher EPU power, and less of the nitrogen-16 decays before it reaches the turbine system because of the higher rate of steam flow due to the EPU. The licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program measures radiation dose at the site boundary and in the area around the facility with an array of thermoluminescent dosimeters. The licensee reported doses ranging from 0.2 to 1.3 mrem per year for the time period 2000-2005. The licensee estimated that the dose would increase approximately in proportion to the EPU power increase (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190 and NRC regulation 10 CFR part 20 limit the annual dose to any member of the public to 25 mrem to the whole body from the nuclear fuel cycle. The offsite dose from all sources, including radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct radiation, would still be well within this limit after the proposed EPU is implemented. Therefore, the staff concludes that the increase in offsite radiation dose would not be significant. Postulated Accident Doses As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would be an increase in the inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core; the core inventory of radionuclides would increase as power level increases. The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase; however, this concentration is limited by the SSES Technical Specifications. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. Some of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems may also contain slightly higher quantities of radioactive material. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents for SSES are currently well below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67; this was confirmed by the NRC staff in the Safety Evaluation Report supporting a license amendment for SSES dated January 31, 2007. The licensee has estimated that the radiological consequences of postulated accidents would increase approximately in proportion to the increase in power level from the proposed EPU (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents are based on conservative assumption and would still be well within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after the increase due to the implementation of the proposed EPU. The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's calculated doses under accident conditions. The staff's independent review of dose calculations under postulated accident conditions determined that dose would be within regulatory limits. Therefore, the staff concludes that the EPU would not significantly increase the consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant increase in the radiological environmental impact of SSES 1 and 2 from postulated accidents. Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR part 51 specify the environmental impacts due to the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and wastes, respectively. SSES's EPU would increase the power level to 3952 mega-watt thermal (Mwt), which is 3.3 percent above the reference power level for Table S-4. The increased power level of 3952 Mwt corresponds to 1300 mega-watt electric (Mwe), which is 30 percent above the reference power level for Table S-3. Part of the increase is due to a more efficient turbine design; this increase in efficiency does not affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of wastes. However, more fuel will be used in the reactor (more fuel assemblies will be replaced at each refueling outage), and that will potentially affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of wastes. The fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria of Tables S-3 and S-4 will still be met because fuel enrichment will be maintained no greater than 5 percent, and the fuel burn-up rate will be maintained within 60 giga-watt-days/metric ton uranium (Gwd/MTU). The staff concludes that after adjusting for the effects of the more efficient turbine, the potential increases in the impact due to the uranium fuel cycle and the transportation of fuel and wastes from the larger amount of fuel used would be small and would not be significant. Summary Based on staff review of licensee submissions and the 1981 FES for operation, it is concluded that the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the consequences of accidents, would not result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there would be no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 3 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES. Table 3.—Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts Gaseous Radiological Effluents Increased gaseous effluents (20 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives. Liquid Radiological Effluents Increased liquid effluents (1 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives. Solid Radioactive Waste Increased amount of solid radioactive waste generated (11 percent by volume and 20 percent by radioactivity) would remain bounded by evaluation in the FES. Occupational Radiation Doses Occupational dose would increase by approximately 20 percent. Doses would be maintained within NRC limits and as low as is reasonably achievable. Offsite Radiation Doses Radiation doses to members of the public would continue to be very small, well within NRC and EPA regulations. Postulated Accident Doses Calculated doses for postulated design basis accidents would remain within NRC limits. Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts Fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria of Tables S-3 and S-4 are met because fuel enrichment will be maintained no greater than 5 percent, and the fuel burn-up rate will be maintained within 60 Gwd/MTU. After adjusting for the effects of the more efficient turbine, the potential increases in impacts due to the fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and wastes would not be significant. Alternatives to Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ☐no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in the current environmental impacts. However, if the proposed EPU were not approved, other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to pursue alternative means of providing electric generation capacity to offset the increased power demand forecasted for the PJM regional transmission territory. A reasonable alternative to the proposed EPU would be to purchase power from other generators in the PJM network. In 2003, generating capacity in PJM consisted primarily of fossil fuel-fired generators: coal generated 36.2 percent of PJM capacity, oil 14.3 percent, and natural gas 6.8 percent (Reference 10). This indicates that purchased power in the PJM territory would likely be generated by a fossil-fuel-fired facility. Construction (if new generation is needed) and operation of a fossil fuel plant would create impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater than those identified for the proposed EPU at SSES. SSES's nuclear units do not emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that are commonly associated with fossil fuel plants. Conservation programs such as demand-side management could feasibly replace the proposed EPU's additional power output. However, forecasted future energy demand in the PJM territory may exceed conservation savings and still require additional generating capacity (Reference 9). The proposed EPU does not involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from those originally identified in the 1981 SSES FES for operation. Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the original FES for construction. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on July 2, 2007, the staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Brad Fuller, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the Environmental Assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated October 11, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 25, December 4 and 26, 2006, February 13, March 14 and 22, April 13, 17, 23, 26, and 27, May 3, 9, 14, and 21, June 1, 4, 8, 14, 20, and 27, July 6, 12, 13, 30, 31, and August 3, 13, 15, 28, and October 5, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML062900160, ML062900161, ML062900162, ML062900306, ML062900361, ML062900401, ML062900405, ML063120119, ML063460354, ML070040376, ML070610371, ML070860229, ML070890411, ML071150113, ML071150043, ML071240196, ML071700104, ML071280506, ML071300266, ML071360026, ML071360036, ML071360041, ML071420064, ML071420047, ML071500058, ML071500300, ML071620218, ML071620311, ML071620299, ML071620342, ML071620256, ML071700096, ML071710442, ML071780629, ML071860142, ML071860421, ML071870449, ML071730404, ML072010019, ML072060040, ML072060588, ML072200103, ML07220477, ML072220482, ML072220485, ML072220490, ML072280247, ML072340597, ML072340603, ML072480182, and ML072900642 respectively). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard V. Guzman, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. References 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PA). 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 Specific water quality criteria. Accessed at *http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/025_0093.pdf* on March 19, 2007. (ML070780679) 2. Ecology III, Inc. (Ecology III). Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 2002—Water Quality and Fishes. Berwick, PA. (ML071040042) 3. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Wild Resource Conservation Program, Regal Fritillary. Accessed at: *http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/regal.aspx* on April 12, 2007. (ML071040022) 4. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Pennyslvania's Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking System. Accessed at: *http://www.dep.state.pa.us/efacts/default.asp* on March 20, 2007. (ML071040025) 5. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (FBC). Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania—Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii. Accessed at: *http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/etspecis.htm* on April 12, 2007. (ML071040032) 6. Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Endangered Species. Accessed at: *http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=458&q=150321* on April 12, 2007. (ML071040030) 7. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL). Specification For Initial Clearing and Control Maintenance Of Vegetation On Or Adjacent To Electric Line Right-of-Way Through Use Of Herbicides, Mechanical, And Handclearing Techniques. Allentown, Pennsylvania. (ML071040030) 8. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285 For Unit 1 Operating License No. NPF-14 and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No. NPF-22 Constant Pressure Power Uprate PLA-6076. Allentown, Pennsylvania. (ML062900160) 9. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285 For Unit 1 Operating License No. NPF-14 and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No. NPF-22 Constant Power Uprate PLA-6076, Attachment 3, Supplemental Environmental Report. Allentown, Pennsylvania. (ML062900161) 10. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application, Appendix E Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating Stage. Allentown, Pennsylvania. (ML062630235) 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts Warehouse—Facility Registration System—Facility Detail Report. Accessed at: *http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id in=PAD000765883&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFO* on March 23, 2007. (ML071040026) 12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.” **Federal Register** , Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990-12992. Washington, DC (April 28, 1994). (ML071040017) 13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.” **Federal Register** , Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278-3280. Washington, DC (January 13, 1995). (ML071040020) 14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.” **Federal Register** , Vol. 66, No. 122, pp. 33716-33717. Washington, DC (June 25, 2001). (ML071040021) 15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. E-mail from J. Fields, PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Allentown, Pennsylvania, to A. Mullins, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject: “Application to Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC).” January 8, 2007. (ML070320756) 16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from R. Bowen, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to A. Mullins, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject: “Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Review, PNDI Number 19031.” January 8, 2007. (ML070190672) [FR Doc. E7-23537 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Information Collection; Request for Public Comments AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)invites the general public and Federal agencies to comment on a renewal of an information collection with revisions that would affect two types of entities:

(1)The reports of auditors to auditees concerning audit results, audit findings, and questioned costs, and

(2)reports from auditees to the Federal Government providing information about the auditees, the awards they administer, and the audit results. These collection efforts are required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501, *et seq.* ) and OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.” Included as part of this information collection is the Data Collection Form (SF-SAC). The changes being proposed are to modify the data elements collected on the SF-SAC to update the internal control terminology and related definitions used in OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,” the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Government Accountability Office. The current Form SF-SAC is being used for audit periods ending in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. A revised Form SF-SAC will be used for audit periods ending in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Additionally, OMB is interested in receiving comments on the requirement to submit the Data Collection Form (SF-SAC) and the single audit reporting packages electronically. Currently, more than 87% of the SF-SAC are filed electronically. Electronic submission would streamline the submission process, reduce the administrative burden and satisfy the Bureau of Census to fully comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277). DATES: Submit comments on or before February 4, 2008. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date. Electronic mail comments may be submitted to: Gilbert Tran at *hai_m._tran@omb.eop.gov* . Please include “Form SF-SAC Comments” in the subject line and the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic message and not as an attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to 202-395-3952. Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. *Comments:* All responses will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also be a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget,

(202)395-3052. The proposed revisions to the Information Collection Form, Form SF-SAC can be obtained by contacting the Office of Federal Financial Management as indicated above or by download from the OMB Grants Management home page on the Internet at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/grants_docs.html* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 0348-0057. *Title:* Data Collection Form. *Form No:* SF-SAC. *Type of Review:* Reinstatement with change. *Respondents:* States, local governments, non-profit organizations (Non-Federal entities) and their auditors. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 72,000 (36,000 from auditors and 36,000 from auditees). The respondents' information is collected by the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (maintained by the U.S. Bureau of the Census). *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 59 hours for each of 400 large respondents and 17 hours for each of 71,600 small respondents for estimated annual burden hours of 1,240,800. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Needs and Uses:* Reports from auditors to auditees and reports from auditees to the Federal government are used by non-Federal entities, pass-through entities, and Federal agencies to ensure that Federal awards are expended in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse

(FAC)(maintained by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) uses the information on the SF-SAC to ensure proper distribution of audit reports to Federal agencies and identify non-Federal entities who have not filed the required reports. The FAC also uses the information on the SF-SAC to create a government-wide database which contains information on audit results. This database is publicly accessible on the Internet at *http://harvester.census.gov/sac/* . It is used by Federal agencies, pass-through entities, non-Federal entities, auditors, the Government Accountability Office, OMB, and the general public for management of and information about Federal awards and the results of audits. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed information collection 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 estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Danny Werfel, Acting Controller. [FR Doc. E7-23540 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-365; WTO/DS-357] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings Regarding U.S. Domestic Support for Agricultural Products AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on November 8, 2007, Brazil requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”) regarding U.S. domestic support measures for agricultural products. That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS365/13. USTR is also providing notice that on the same date, Canada made a revised request for the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the WTO Agreement in a similar dispute. Canada's request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS357/12. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in these disputes. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the consultations, comments should be submitted on or before February 1, 2008 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0705@ustr.eop.gov,* with “Agricultural Subsidies (DS357 and 365)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yocis, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.,

(202)395-6150. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA)(19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that the establishment of a dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the WTO *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes* (“DSU”) in each of these disputes. If such a panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established. Major Issues Raised In the requests for the establishment of a panel, Brazil and Canada allege that the United States has provided support to domestic agricultural producers in excess of U.S. commitments with respect to the Aggregate Measurement of Support (“AMS”) as described in Article 6.2 of the WTO *Agreement on Agriculture* and the U.S. WTO schedule of commitments. According to Brazil and Canada, the United States has provided domestic support in excess of its AMS commitments in each of the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, in breach of Article 3.2 of the WTO *Agreement on Agriculture.* The revised request for the establishment of a panel submitted by Canada supersedes Canada's prior request for the establishment of a panel from Canada (see 72 FR 39,467 (July 18, 2007)), which Canada has withdrawn. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the disputes. Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0705@ustr.eop.gov,* with “Agricultural Subsidies (DS357 and 365)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “Submitted in Confidence” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on these dispute settlement proceedings, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the disputes; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-357 and DS-365, Ag Subsidies Disputes) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Daniel Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-23575 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W8-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of December 3, 2007: A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 6, 2007 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Regulatory matters regarding financial institutions; and a Matter involving enforcement techniques. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: November 30, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23602 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56855; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-90] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto to List and Trade Delayed Start Option Series November 28, 2007. I. Introduction On November 7, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to list and trade Delayed Start Option Series TM (“DSOs”) on any security index that has been approved for trading on the Exchange. On September 5, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on September 17, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended, and designates DSOs as “standardized options” pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act. 4 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56378 (September 10, 2007), 72 FR 52944 (September 17, 2007) (“Notice”). 4 17 CFR 240.9b-1. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange is proposing to introduce for trading a new type of security index option product called DSOs. DSOs would possess all of the characteristics of existing index options with one variation: at the commencement of trading of a particular DSO, and until a predetermined date (the “strike setting date”), there would be no set exercise price. Instead, prior to the opening of a particular DSO series, a pre-established methodology would be applied to determine the strike price of the DSO, and the strike price would then be fixed on the strike setting date according to that formula. The Exchange notes that DSOs, which address the dependence of an index option's vega (volatility exposure) on the relationship between the option's strike price and the underlying index level, are designed as a tool to allow customers to manage risk associated with the volatility of a particular index. 5 5 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, at 52945. *Product Description.* DSOs would be identical to other option series that currently trade except that the exercise price for a DSO would be fixed based on the closing value of the underlying index on a predetermined strike setting date prior to expiration. The particular strike setting date would be specified at the time the DSO is initially opened for trading and would be no sooner than one month, and no later than twelve months, after the series' opening. The particular expiration date would also be specified at the time the DSO is initially opened for trading and would be no later than what is currently permitted under CBOE rules. 6 6 Presently, the longest term for an option series expiration is thirty-nine months from the listing date. *See* CBOE Rule 5.8(a) and proposed CBOE Rule 24.9(d)(2). Initially, CBOE proposes to establish the strike setting dates for all series of DSOs at three months prior to the option's expiration date. However, as proposed, CBOE would have the ability to issue series of DSOs with more or less time than three months between the strike setting date and expiration date. Accordingly, the particular strike setting date and the expiration date, and thus the corresponding length of the interval between the strike setting date and expiration, would be set prior to issuance of each particular series. No changes to any terms of an existing DSO series could be made once a series commences trading. *Establishment of Strike Price.* On the strike setting date, the DSO would be assigned a strike price, which would be at-the-money, in-the-money, or out-of-the-money, according to the pre-established terms of the particular DSO series. A DSO's exercise price would be fixed based on the closing value of the underlying index on the strike setting date, rounded to the nearest one-eighth (.125) value, or such smaller value as the Exchange may designate at the time the DSO is listed, provided that the value cannot be smaller than 0.01. 7 For example, using a one-eighth interval, if the S&P 500® Index (“SPX”) closes at 1004.12 on the strike setting date, an at-the-money DSO would be assigned a strike price of 1004.125. After the strike setting date, the DSO would trade the same as other options until expiration. 7 Because of system limitations, the Exchange currently plans to round DSO exercise prices to the nearest .125. However, should the system functionality permit it in the future, the Exchange wants the flexibility to be able to determine to round DSO exercise prices to a smaller value, provided that the particular increment would be designated at the time the DSO is listed and that it would not be any smaller than 0.01. An in- or out-of-the money DSO would trade in the exact same manner as an at-the-money DSO, except that the strike price would be set to a predetermined level either in- or out-of-the-money on the strike setting date ( *e.g.* , 5% in-the-money, or 5% out-of-the-money). For example, if the Exchange determines to list a 5% out-of-the-money DSO on the SPX, and the SPX closes at 1000 on the strike setting date, the strike price would be established at 1050. The amount by which the strike price of an in- or out-of-the money DSO series would be set in- or out-of-the-money on the strike setting date would be announced prior to the inception of trading of that particular series and could not change thereafter. *Exercise Style.* All DSOs would feature European-style exercise until the strike setting date ( *i.e.* , the option contract could not be exercised during this period). After the strike setting date, the DSO would be subject to the exercise style ( *i.e.* , American or European) of the particular index option class. The period during which exercise is restricted would therefore depend upon the particular DSO's strike setting date, expiration date, and expiration style. For instance, in the case of a DSO that is subject to American-style exercise, is issued with a nine-month expiration, and has a strike setting date fixed at three-months prior to expiration, then the period of non-exercise would be six months. 8 8 Similarly, a DSO that is subject to European-style exercise with a nine-month expiration and a strike setting date fixed at three months prior to expiration would have a nine-month period of non-exercisability. The strike setting interval would be publicly announced prior to the inception of trading of a particular DSO series. No changes to any terms of existing DSO series could be made once the series trades (with the exception of the establishment of the exercise price). *Trading Increments, Margin, and Trading Symbols.* The Exchange proposes to list DSO puts to correspond with each DSO call in a particular index option class. As with all other options, the premium quotation would be stated in decimals, and one point would equal $100. The minimum tick for options trading below $3.00 would be 0.05 ($5.00) and for all other series, 0.10 ($10.00). DSOs in any particular index option class would be treated the same as any other options on the same index for the purpose of determining customer margin. 9 Therefore, a buyer of DSOs would have to pay the premium in full, while a seller would have to put up the entire premium, plus 15% of the underlying value for a broad-based index option, or the premium plus 20% for a narrow-based or micro narrow-based index option. 9 See CBOE Rule 12.3. However, the Exchange does not initially plan to permit spread margining between DSO and non-DSO options for the time period between the initial listing of a DSO and its strike setting date. The Exchange intends to consider what spread margin would be appropriate and address the subject under a separate rule filing. Prior to the strike setting date, margin on any DSO would be based on the then-current level of the underlying index. For example, a DSO whose strike price would be set at-the-money would be margined as an at-the-money option in the same index option class prior to the strike setting date, because prior to the strike setting date the DSO's price would be directly related to the price of an at-the-money option. Prior to the strike setting date, in- and out-of-the-money DSOs would be margined the same as any other in- and out-of-the-money options in the same index option class. Prior to the strike setting date, DSOs would be distinguished from existing options by a unique root symbol and a special strike price code designating an at-the-money, in-the-money, or out-of-the-money option. The Exchange intends to trade the DSO series under separate symbols from other option series on the same index option class. The exact exercise price, and a unique DSO strike price code, would be fixed on the strike setting date pursuant to the method established at the time the option series was originally opened for trading. The strike price code would specify the exact strike price of the particular DSO option series (rounded to the nearest eighth or smaller increment, if applicable). *Position and Exercise Limits.* Positions in any DSO would be subject to the same rules governing position and exercise limits upon other options in the same index option class and, for purposes of determining position limits, DSO positions would be aggregated with positions in other series of the same option class. 10 Similarly, members and member organizations trading in DSOs would continue to be subject to the same reporting requirements and margin and clearing firm requirements as provided under Interpretations and Policies .03 and .04 to CBOE Rule 24.4. 10 *See* CBOE Rules 4.11, 4.12, 24.4, 24.4A, and 24.4B. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to clarify in Rule 24.4B (Position Limits for Options on Micro Narrow-Based Indexes as Defined Under Rule 24.2(d)) that position in Short Term Option Series and Quarterly Options, together with DSO positions, shall be aggregated with positions in options contracts in the same class. *Pricing of a DSO.* Similar to other index options, the pricing of an at-the-money DSO, for example, would reflect the price of the underlying index, implied volatility, interest rates, time to expiration, and strike price. Therefore, the price for a DSO would generally approximate the concurrent price for a similar option, with one significant deviation: whereas other options are priced based on current levels of implied volatility, a DSO is priced using an expectation of implied volatility levels at the time the strike price is set, which is generally derived from the current level of implied volatility. The dependence of a particular DSO's price on expected implied volatility is what the Exchange believes would make DSOs useful to market participants that are interested in volatility trading. *Customer Suitability.* Although the Exchange believes that DSOs may be suitable for all types of investors, the Exchange has proposed to limit the trading of DSOs to investors with prior options trading experience. 11 Also, prior to the commencement of trading of DSOs, the Exchange would make available on its Web site all information necessary to inform members and customers of the addition of new DSO series to a particular option class. 11 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, at 52947. *See also* Proposed CBOE Rule 9.9, Interpretations and Policies .01. *Surveillance.* The Exchange represents that it has in place appropriate surveillance procedures to monitor trading activity in DSOs and intends to monitor trading activity in DSOs like any other option series listed in that same index option class. 12 12 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, at 52948. 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 exchange. 13 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 14 which, among other things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 13 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). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission notes that options similar to CBOE's proposed DSOs currently trade in the over-the-counter market. The introduction of CBOE's proposed DSOs will provide investors with an exchange-traded product to manage the risk associated with changes in volatility of a particular security index, thereby providing additional investment options to investors in the context of a transparent exchange-traded market for these products. In addition, DSOs will be subject to CBOE's rules applicable to other standardized options. For example, positions in a DSO will be subject to CBOE's rules governing position and exercise limits and, for the purposes of determining position limits, DSO positions will be aggregated with positions in other series of the same option class. Similarly, CBOE members and member organizations trading in DSOs will be subject to the reporting requirements and clearing firm requirements provided under CBOE rules. Further, DSOs in any particular index option class will be treated the same as any other options on the same index for the purpose of determining customer margin. The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it has surveillance procedures in place that are adequate to monitor trading in DSOs. In particular, the Exchange will monitor trading activity in DSOs as it does for other option series listed in the same index option class. Further, the Exchange will limit trading of DSOs to investors with prior options trading experience, and will provide information about DSOs on its Web site, including information that describes the terms and operation of DSOs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and should promote just and equitable principles of trade while protecting investors and the public interest. IV. Designation of DSOs as Standardized Options Pursuant to Rule 19b-1 Rule 9b-1 under the Act establishes a disclosure framework for standardized options that are traded on a national securities exchange and cleared through a registered clearing agency. 15 Under this framework, the exchange on which a standardized option is listed and traded must prepare an Options Disclosure Document (“ODD”) that, among other things, identifies the issuer and describes the uses, mechanics, and risks of options trading, in language that can be easily understood by the general investing public. The ODD is treated as a substitute for the traditional prospectus. A broker-dealer must provide a copy of the ODD to each customer at or before approving the customer's account for trading any standardized option. 16 Any amendment to the ODD must be distributed to each customer whose account is approved for trading the options class for which the ODD relates. 17 15 “Standardized options” are defined in Rule 9b-1(a)(4) as “options contracts trading on a national securities exchange, an automated quotation system of a registered securities association, or a foreign securities exchange which relate to options classes the terms of which are limited to specific expiration dates and exercise prices, or such other securities as the Commission may, by order, designate.” 17 CFR 240.9b-1(a)(4). 16 *See* 17 CFR 240.9b-1(d)(1). 17 *See* 17 CFR 240.9b-1(d)(2). Pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act, use of the ODD is limited to “standardized options” for which there is an effective registration statement on Form S-20 under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) or that are otherwise exempt from registration. 18 Pursuant to Rule 9b-1(a)(4), the Commission may, by order, designate as “standardized options” securities that do not otherwise meet the definition of “standardized options” but which “the Commission believes should be included within the [options] disclosure framework.” 19 The Commission has used this authority in the past, for example, in connection with the listing and trading of Index Participations, 20 FLEX options, 21 credit default options, 22 and credit default basket options. 23 CBOE has requested that the Commission designate DSOs as standardized options so that the ODD may be used for DSOs. 24 18 *See* 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(1) and (c)(8). *See also* 17 CFR 230.238 (“Rule 238”). Rule 238 under the Securities Act provides an exemption from the Securities Act for any standardized option, as defined by Rule 9b-1(a)(4) under the Act, with limited exceptions. Rule 238 does not exempt standardized options from the anti-fraud provisions of Section 17 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q. Also, offers and sales of standardized options by or on behalf of the issuer of the underlying security or securities, an affiliate of the issuer, or an underwriter, will constitute an offer or sale of the underlying security or securities as defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(3). *See also* Securities Act Release No. 8171 (December 23, 2002), 68 FR 188 (January 2, 2003) (Exemption for Standardized Options From Provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and From Registration Requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934). 19 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19055 (September 16, 1982), 47 FR 41950, 41954 (September 23, 1982). 20 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26709 (April 11, 1989), 54 FR 15280 (April 17, 1989) (SR-Phlx-88-07; SR-Amex-88-10; SR-CBOE-88-09). 21 *See* Securities Exchange Act Nos. 31910 (February 23, 1993), 58 FR 12056 (March 2, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-17; SR-OCC-92-33; ODD 93-1) (order designating FLEX index options as standardized options under Rule 9b-1); and 36841 (February 14, 1996), 61 FR 6666 (February 21, 1996) (SR-CBOE-95-43 and SR-PSE-95-24) and 37336 (June 19, 1996), 61 FR 33558 (June 27, 1996) (SR-Amex-95-57) (orders approving the listing and trading of FLEX equity options, and designating them as standardized options pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act). 22 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55871 (June 6, 2007), 72 FR 32372 (June 12, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-84). 23 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56275 (August 17, 2007), 72 FR 47097 (August 22, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-26). 24 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, at 52947. The Commission hereby designates DSOs, as separately defined in the Options Clearing Corporation's (“OCC”) proposal, 25 as standardized options for purposes of Rule 9b-1 under the Act. DSOs do not meet the definition of standardized options because they do not have a specific exercise price. Whereas the exercise price of a conventional standardized option is determined when the option series is first listed for trading, the exercise price for a DSO would not be determined until the strike setting date. Instead, prior to the listing of the particular DSO series, the Exchange will specify a formula to determine the strike price of the DSO on the pre-determined strike setting date according to the terms of the formula. 26 No changes to any terms of existing DSO series could be made once the series begins trading. 25 The OCC has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to enable it to clear and settle DSOs proposed to be listed by CBOE (the “OCC Proposal”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56856 (November 28, 2007) (SR-OCC-2007-13) (order noticing and granting accelerated approval). The OCC Proposal defines the term “delayed start option” to mean “an option that at the commencement of trading does not have an exercise price but instead has an exercise price setting formula pursuant to which the exercise price will be fixed on the exercise price setting date for the series of delayed start option.” This definition of DSOs is being added to Article 1, Section 1 of the OCC's By-Laws. 26 Prior to the opening of the particular DSO series, the Exchange will announce the strike setting date as well as the expiration date of the DSO. Aside from the determination of the exercise price, DSOs resemble standardized options in other significant respects. DSOs have an underlying security index and a specific expiration date. Like other standardized options, they also have standardized terms pertaining to the rights and obligations of holders and writers. The fact that DSOs lack a specified exercise price at the commencement of trading does not detract from their character as options. Compared with FLEX options, which the Commission has also declared to be “standardized options,” 27 the terms of DSOs would be even more standardized in that a strike price formula, settlement, expiration date, and exercise style would be fixed by the Exchange for each DSO series. In addition, similar to DSOs, credit default options and credit default basket options, which were recently designated by the Commission as “standardized options,” also have many characteristics of standardized options, except for exercise price. 28 27 *See supra* note 21 (citing the applicable orders regarding FLEX equity and index options). 28 *See supra* notes 22 and 23 (citing the approval orders for credit default options and credit default basket options, respectively). The Commission also believes that the fact that the OCC, the clearing agency for standardized options, is willing to serve as issuer of DSOs supports the view that adding DSOs to the standardized option disclosure framework is reasonable. 29 29 The Commission notes that CBOE presently intends to offer DSOs in early 2008, and has represented that they will not introduce DSOs before the supplement to the ODD has been submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act. Telephone conversation between Richard Holley III, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, and Jennifer M. Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, CBOE, on November 16, 2007. Therefore, the Commission herein designates DSOs, such as those proposed by CBOE, as standardized options for purposes of Rule 9b-1 under the Act. 30 30 17 CFR 240.9b-1. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 31 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-90) as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved. 31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). *It is further ordered,* pursuant to Rule 9b-1(a)(4) under the Act, 32 that DSOs, as defined in proposed rule change SR-OCC-2007-13, are hereby designated as standardized options. 32 17 CFR 240.9b-1(a)(4). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 33 33 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(51). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23533 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56854; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Amend NYSE Rule 342.13 (“Acceptability of Supervisors”) November 28, 2007. I. Introduction On June 20, 2007, The New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 342.13 (“Acceptability of Supervisors”) to eliminate the current requirement in the rule that the General Securities Principal Examination (“Series 24 Examination”) be passed after July 1, 2001 in order to be recognized by the Exchange as an acceptable alternative to the General Securities Sales Supervisor Qualification Examination (“Series 9/10 Examination”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. On September 27, 2007, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On October 15, 2007, NYSE filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 29, 2007. 3 The Commission received one comment letter, which expressed support for the proposed rule change. 4 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56686 (October 23, 2007), 72 FR 61193 (October 29, 2007) (the “Notice”). 4 *See* letter from Marian H. Desilets, President, Association of Registration Management, Inc. to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated November 15, 2007. II. Description of the Proposal Rule 342 (“Offices—Approval, Supervision and Control”) prescribes the Exchange's general supervisory requirements for member organizations. Among the requirements, Rule 342.13 (“Acceptability of Supervisors”) sets forth the Exchange's qualification standards for personnel delegated supervisory responsibility. Before 2001, this provision provided, in part, that a person delegated supervisory responsibility must pass the General Securities Sales Supervisor Qualification Examination (“Series 9/10 Examination”) or an historical equivalent ( *i.e.* , the Series 8 Examination). In 2002, the Exchange amended Rule 342.13 5 to recognize the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)'s 6 General Securities Principal Examination (“Series 24 Examination”), if taken and passed after July 1, 2001, as an alternative to the Series 9/10 Examination requirement for persons whose duties did not include supervision of options or municipal securities sales activities. 7 At that time, the Exchange represented that NASD, as of July 2, 2001, had enhanced the Series 24 Examination by including test questions sufficient to provide appropriate coverage of the NYSE Rules. The Commission approved the proposed rule change on October 17, 2002. 8 The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 342.13 to eliminate the requirement that the Series 24 Examination be passed after July 1, 2001 in order for it to be an acceptable alternative to the Series 9/10 Examination. 9 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46425 (August 28, 2002), 67 FR 56863 (September 5, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-24). 6 NASD is now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). 7 The Series 24 Examination does not address these activities. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46631 (October 9, 2002), 67 FR 64187 (October 17, 2002) (order approving SR-NYSE-2002-24). *See also* NYSE Information Memo 02-51 (November 12, 2002). 9 Prospectively, persons may continue to qualify to supervise options or municipal securities sales activity by taking and passing the Series 24 Examination and also taking and passing the Registered Options Principal (Series 4) and/or Municipal Securities Principal (Series 53) examinations. 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 exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which, among other things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 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). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposed amendment to NYSE's rules to eliminate the requirement that the Series 24 Examination be passed after July 1, 2001 in order for it to be recognized as an acceptable alternative to the Series 9/10 Examination is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the NYSE and the NASD rulebooks have converged significantly in the last six years. Thus, the persons who took the Series 24 before July 1, 2001 have been subject to regulatory standards that have, to a large degree, been harmonized. 12 Further, persons who took the Series 24 Examination before July 1, 2001 have been subject to regulatory and firm element continuing education, 13 which provides ongoing training with respect to current regulatory requirements, including NYSE Rules, applicable to duties and responsibilities of those persons. 12 Convergence between the NYSE Rules and FINRA Rules has included, in part, standards relating to anti-money laundering, supervision, research and internal controls, etc. 13 *See* NYSE Rule 345A. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed amendment furthers the goals of the Exchange's and FINRA's continuing Rule Harmonization Initiative 14 in that it should result in more closely aligned requirements under Rule 342.13 and the corresponding supervisory requirements under FINRA's regulatory scheme. 15 14 The purpose of the Rule Harmonization Initiative is to achieve, to the extent practicable, substantive harmonization of the two regulatory schemes in an effort to reduce regulatory duplication and streamline the rules of self-regulatory organizations. 15 *See* FINRA Rule 1022(a). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 16 that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NYSE-2007-53), be, and hereby is, approved. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-23532 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of additional persons whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182). In addition, OFAC is publishing a change to the listing of one individual previously designated pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. DATES: The designation by the Secretary of the Treasury of the nine individuals and thirteen entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on November 27, 2007. In addition, the change to the listing of one individual previously designated pursuant to section 804(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on November 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site ( *http://www.treas.gov/ofac* ) or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on demand service, tel.:

(202)622-0077. Background The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals. The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Kingpin Act blocks the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of foreign persons designated by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security who are found to be:

(1)Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act;

(2)owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or

(3)playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking. On November 27, 2007, OFAC designated nine additional individuals and thirteen additional entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. The list of additional designees follows: *Individuals:* 1. AZAM, Amir (a.k.a. SHEIKH MOHAMMED, Amir Azam); c/o A A TRADING FZCO, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 02 Nov 1971; POB Chiswick, England; Citizen United Arab Emirates; Passport 039856039 (United Kingdom); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 2. BEHZAD, Ahmad Abdulla Mohammad Abdulla (a.k.a. BEHZAD BSTAKI, Ahmad Abdullah Mohammed Abdullah; a.k.a. BEHZAD, Ahmad Abdulla Mohammad Abdulla; a.k.a. “Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah”; a.k.a. BAHZAD, Ahmad Abdullah Mohamed Abdullah; a.k.a. “Abdullah Mohammed Abdullah BAHZAD”; a.k.a. “Mohammed Abdullah Mohammed BAHZAD”; a.k.a. “Ahmed BEHZA”; a.k.a. BEHZAD, Ahmad Abdulla Mohd Abdulla; a.k.a. BEHZAD, Ahmed Abdullah; a.k.a. BEHZAD, Ahmad Abdulla Mohammad A; a.k.a. BEHZAD, Abdulla Mohd Abdulla; a.k.a. “Abdulla Mohamad Abdulla Mohamad BEHZAD”; a.k.a. “Abdullah Ahmad Abdullah Mohamad BAHZAD”); c/o SHAHBAZ KHAN GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; c/o FMF GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; DOB 02 Nov 1971; POB Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Citizen United Arab Emirates; Passport A1042768 (United Arab Emirates); Passport A0269124 (United Arab Emirates); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 3. LOAN, Waseem Rauf (a.k.a. LOUN, Waseem Rouf; a.k.a. LOUN, Waseem Raouf; a.k.a. RASHID, Abdul Majid; a.k.a. RASHI, Abdul Majid; a.k.a. BUTT, Abdul Majid; a.k.a. LOAN, Waseem Raouf; a.k.a. LOUN, Waseem Rauf; a.k.a. LON RAOUF, Wasim Raouf); c/o AL AMLOOD TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; c/o FMF GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Pakistan; DOB 03 Mar 1966; POB Lahore, Pakistan; Citizen Pakistan; Passport AA8908881 (Pakistan); Identification Number 35200-5407888-5 (Pakistan); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 4. GHANI, Mohammad Nadeem (GHANI, Mohamed Nadim); c/o ZULEKHA GENERAL TRADING LLC, Ajman, United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Citizen United Kingdom; Passport 093055372 (United Kingdom); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 5. SCHNEIDER, Simon, c/o OFFENBACH HAUSHALTWAREN B.V., Beverwijk, Netherlands; c/o BELS FLOWERS IMPORT EXPORT BVBA, Antwerpen, Belgium; Netherlands; DOB 14 Jul 1967; POB Hoorn, Netherlands; Citizen Netherlands; Passport BA0199589 (Netherlands); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 6. MICHIELSEN, Tom (a.k.a. MICHIELSEN, Tom R.D.); Belgium; DOB 22 Dec 1975; POB Kapellen, Belgium; Citizen Belgium; Passport FF615720 (Belgium); Identification Number 1041 002019 56 (Belgium); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 7. KHAN, Sherbaz, c/o SHAHBAZ KHAN GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; c/o SHER MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, Peshawar, Pakistan; Peshawar, Pakistan; P.O. Box 33651, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 03 Apr 1979; POB Khyber Agency, Pakistan; Citizen Pakistan; Passport 137987 (Pakistan); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 8. NOOR MUHAMMAD, Abdul Majeed (a.k.a. NOOR MUHAMMED, Abdul Majid; a.k.a. NOOR MOHAMMAD, Abdul Majid); c/o FMF GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 1957; POB Chagai, Pakistan; Citizen Pakistan; Passport LA097936 (Pakistan); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. 9. DUZCAN, Ceylan, United Arab Emirates; DOB 01 Mar 1975; POB Savsat, Turkey; Citizen Turkey; Passport 315408 (Turkey); Driver's License No. 11550 (Turkey); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. *Entities:* 1. SHAHBAZ KHAN GENERAL TRADING LLC (a.k.a. AL SHAHBOZ KHAN GENERAL TRADING LLC.); Al Ghas Building, Baniyas Square, Al Rigga Area, Flat No. 106, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 24241, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 40754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Shop No. 16, Baniyas Centre, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; C.R. No. 52060 (United Arab Emirates); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 2. SHER MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, Plot Numbers 119-121, Industrial Estate, Jamrud Road, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan; Shahnawaz Traders Royal Industrial Area, Jamrud Road, Peshawar, Pakistan; C.R. No. P-01876/19981106 (Pakistan); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 3. SHAHNAWAZ TRADERS, Shop No. 1-2, Block A, Jamrud Road, Royal Market, Peshawar, Pakistan; (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 4. SHAHBAZ TV CENTER, Shop No. 1-2, Block A, Jamrud Road, Royal Market, Peshawar, Pakistan; (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 5. DUBAI TRADING COMPANY, 44-45, Royal Shopping Plaza, Industrial Estate, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan; 53 Royal Shopping Plaza, Industrial Estate, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan; (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 6. SAF TECH S.L., Calle Serrano 52, Barcelona 08031, Spain; C.R. No. B62398060 (Spain); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 7. KHAN & SCHIRINDEL GMBH, Schwalbacher Strasse 19, Weisbaden 65185, Germany; C.R. No. HRB20555 (Germany); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 8. OFFENBACH HAUSHALTWAREN B.V., Rietlanden 5-A, Beverwijk 1948, Netherlands; Rietlanden 5-7, Beverwijk 1948 NE., Netherlands; C.R. No. 28094396 (Netherlands); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 9. BELS FLOWERS IMPORT EXPORT BVBA, Lange Lobroekstraat 8, Antwerpen 2060, Belgium; C.R. No. 478351540 (Belgium); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 10. A A TRADING FZCO, P.O. Box 37089, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 11. ZULEKHA GENERAL TRADING LLC (a.k.a. ZULEIKHA GENERAL TRADING; a.k.a. ZULIKHA GENERAL TRADING); P.O. Box 5456, Ajman, United Arab Emirates; C.R. No. 32035 (United Arab Emirates); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 12. AL AMLOOD TRADING LLC, Ali Rashid Lootah Building, Al Khaleej Street, Al Baraha Area, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 3517, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; C.R. No. 79190 (United Arab Emirates); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. 13. FMF GENERAL TRADING LLC, Ahmad Abdulla Bahzad Building, Al Qusais Street, Al Qusais Industrial Area, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 16542, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; C.R. No. 66488 (United Arab Emirates); (ENTITY) [SDNTK]. In addition, OFAC has made a change to the following listing of one individual previously designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act: 1. KHAN, Shahbaz (a.k.a. KHAN GALAT KHAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. KHAN ZADRAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. KOOCHI, Shahbaz; a.k.a. “HAJI SHAHBAZ KOOCHI”; a.k.a. “HAJI SHAHBAZ”; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. “HAJI SHABBAZ”; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Shabbaz; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Haji Shabaz; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Haji Shahbaz; a.k.a. HAN, Cellat; a.k.a. HAN, Sahbaz; a.k.a. KOCHI, Haji Shahbaz Khan; a.k.a. KHAN JALAT KHAN, Shahbaz); Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Peshawar, Pakistan; Hanover, Germany; DOB 01 Jan 1948; POB Landi Kotal, Pakistan; Citizen Pakistan; Passport AB4106401 (Pakistan); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. The listings now appear as follows: 1. KHAN, Shahbaz (a.k.a. KHAN GALAT KHAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. KHAN ZADRAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. KOOCHI, Shahbaz; a.k.a. “HAJI SHAHBAZ KOOCHI”; a.k.a. “HAJI SHAHBAZ”; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Shahbaz; a.k.a. “HAJI SHABBAZ”; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Shabbaz; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Haji Shabaz; a.k.a. ZADRAN, Haji Shahbaz; a.k.a. HAN, Cellat; a.k.a. HAN, Sahbaz; a.k.a. KOCHI, Haji Shahbaz Khan; a.k.a. KHAN JALAT KHAN, Shahbaz); c/o DUBAI TRADING COMPANY, Peshawar, Pakistan; c/o KHAN & SCHIRINDEL GMBH, Weisbaden, Germany; c/o SAF TECH S.L., Barcelona, Spain; c/o SHAHBAZ KHAN GENERAL TRADING LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; c/o SHAHBAZ TV CENTER, Peshawar, Pakistan; c/o SHAHNAWAZ TRADERS, Peshawar, Pakistan; c/o SHER MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, Peshawar, Pakistan; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Peshawar, Pakistan; Hanover, Germany; DOB 01 Jan 1948; POB Landi Kotal, Pakistan; Citizen Pakistan; Passport AB4106401 (Pakistan); (INDIVIDUAL) [SDNTK]. Dated: November 27, 2007. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. [FR Doc. 07-5920 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 21

Traces to 21 documents

U.S. Code