Notices. Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority

40,997 words·~186 min read·/register/2007/12/17/07-6076

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

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-07] Revocation and Redelegation of Fair Housing Act Complaint Processing Authority AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority for Fair Housing Act complaint processing made within the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO under the Fair Housing Act and redelegates this authority to FHEO region and headquarters staff. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a March 30, 1989 notice (54 FR 13121), the Secretary of HUD delegated the authority to enforce the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 *et seq.* ) to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Counsel, among other Department officials. In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO revokes the August 4, 2003 (effective July 25, 2003, 68 FR 45846) and July 6, 2005 (effective June 23, 2005, 70 FR 38971) redelegations of authority for Fair Housing Act complaint processing made within the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO under the Fair Housing Act and redelegates this authority to FHEO region and headquarters staff. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates this authority as provided in this notice. Section A. Authority Retained and Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates the authority for Fair Housing Act complaint processing, as provided in 24 CFR part 103, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and further redelegates the authority under 24 CFR part 103, subparts A, B, D (with the exception of the filing of a Secretary-initiated complaint under 24 CFR 103.200(b) and 24 CFR 103.204(a)), E, and F, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs; Director of the Office of Enforcement; Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations and FHEO Region Directors. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO further retains and redelegates the authority, under 24 CFR part 103, subpart C, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs; Director of the Office of Enforcement and FHEO Region Directors. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO further retains and redelegates the authority under 24 CFR 103.510(a) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs and Director of the Office of Enforcement. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO further retains and redelegates the authority under 24 CFR 103.510(d) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs; Director of the Office of Enforcement; Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations and FHEO Region Directors. The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to reconsider no cause determinations. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO further retains and redelegates this authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs and Director of the Office of Enforcement. Section B. Authority To Further Redelegate The General Deputy Assistant Secretary may further redelegate the authorities provided in Section A of this notice. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs; Director of the Office of Enforcement; Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations and FHEO Region Directors may not redelegate the authorities provided in Section A of this notice. Section C. Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority for Fair Housing complaint processing made within the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Dated: May 31, 2007. Cheryl L. Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24336 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-08] Revocation and Redelegation of Administrative Authority for Title I, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority from the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under Title I, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and redelegates certain authority, to FHEO headquarters and Region staff. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By previous delegation, the Secretary of HUD delegated to the Assistant Secretary of FHEO, with certain exceptions, the authority to act under Title I, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309). ( *See* 41 FR 15359, April 12, 1976.) The provisions of Section 109 are implemented through HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 6. ( *See* also 24 CFR 6.3, in which the “Responsible Official” is defined as the Assistant Secretary for FHEO (or the Assistant Secretary's designee)). On August 4, 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)redelegated the Assistant Secretary's authority under Section 109, as provided in 24 CFR 6.10 and 6.11, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary of FHEO. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO further redelegated these authorities to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, and to the FHEO Hub Directors. Since then, FHEO has created an Office of Systemic Investigations. Further, the FHEO Hub Directors' titles have been changed to FHEO Region Directors. Accordingly, in this redelegation, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO revokes the August 4, 2003 and all other previous delegations and retains and redelegates the authority to act as the “Responsible Official” under Title I Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and its implementing regulations subject to certain exceptions. Section A. Authority Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with noted exception, redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to act as the “Responsible Official” under Section 109, only as provided in 24 CFR 6.10 and 6.11. This includes the authority to further redelegate. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with noted exception, further redelegates these authorities to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, FHEO Region Directors and the Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations. Section B. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated by the Assistant Secretary in this notice does not include the authority to issue or to waive regulations. The authority delegated by the General Deputy Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to further redelegate. As to the FHEO Region Directors, the authority delegated additionally does not include the authority under 24 CFR 6.11(c) to review letters of finding. Section C. Delegations of Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of the authority within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24339 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-04] Revocation and Redelegation of Authority Under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and retains and redelegates this authority, with noted exceptions, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who in turn redelegates certain authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement and FHEO Region Directors. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a previous delegation, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to act under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. (68 FR 43156, July 21, 2003). Since then, FHEO the title of the Hub Directors has been changed to FHEO Region Directors. In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO revokes prior redelegations and retains and, with noted exceptions, redelegates authority under the Age Discrimination Act to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, in turn, redelegates certain authority to certain FHEO headquarters and region staff. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegate authority as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with noted exceptions, redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to act under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. This includes the authority to further redelegate authority. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with noted exceptions, redelegates this authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, and the FHEO Region Directors. Section B. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated by the Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to issue or waive regulations. The authority redelegated by the General Deputy Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to determine that voluntary compliance cannot be achieved pursuant to 24 CFR 146.39(d)(1), the authority to terminate financial assistance under 24 CFR 146.39(a)(1), the authority to refer to the Department of Justice or secure compliance by other means pursuant to 24 CFR 146.39(a)(2), the authority to defer new federal financial assistance under 24 CFR 146.39(e), or authority to further redelegate. Section C. Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority made within the office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24317 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-03] Revocation and Redelegation of Authority Under Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority made within the office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), and retains and, with noted exception, redelegates this authority to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who retains and further redelegates certain authority to FHEO headquarters and region office staff. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone number

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fair Housing Initiatives Program contained in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3616a, authorizes the Secretary to provide funding to state and local governments or their agencies, public or private non-profit organizations or other public or private entities formulating or carrying out programs to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices. This enables the recipients to carry out activities designed to obtain enforcement of the rights granted by the federal Fair Housing Act or by substantially equivalent state or local fair housing laws. This also enables the recipients to carry out education and outreach activities designed to inform the public of their rights and obligations under such federal, state or local laws prohibiting discrimination. By regulation, the Secretary has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to administer the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (24 CFR 125.104(a)). By previous redelegation, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegated certain authority under the FHIP (68 FR 45843). Since that time, the FHEO Hub Directors' title has been changed to FHEO Region Directors. Through this notice, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO revokes all previous redelegations under FHIP within the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and retains and, with noted exception, redelegates authority to certain FHEO headquarters and region staff. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegate authority as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with certain exceptions, noted in Section B, redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to act under Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-242, February 5, 1988). This includes authority to further redelegate this authority. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary, in turn, retains and with exceptions noted in Section B herein redelegates this authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Programs and the FHEO Region Directors. Section B. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated by the Assistant Secretary for FHEO does not include the authority to issue or waive regulations, including authority to waive portions of the FHIP regulation pursuant to 24 CFR 125.106. The authority redelegated in this notice by the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, does not include the authority to determine the appropriate reporting and record maintenance, as provided in 24 CFR 125.104(e). Section C. Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO regarding Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, are revoked, including the August 4, 2003 redelegation published at 68 FR 45843. Section D. Authority To Redelegate The authority redelegated from the General Deputy Assistant Secretary, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, FHEO Region Directors and the Director of the Office of Programs may not be further redelegated. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl L. Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24319 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-01] Revocation and Redelegation of Administrative Authority Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and HUD's implementing regulations, and redelegates certain authority as set forth herein to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary, who in turn redelegates certain authority as set forth herein to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations and the FHEO Region Directors. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority to act as “responsible civil rights official” and “reviewing civil rights official” under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD's implementing regulations in 24 CFR part 8. The Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegated the authority to act as the “responsible civil rights official” to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who in turn, redelegated that authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement and the FHEO Hub Directors. The Assistant Secretary for FHEO also redelegated the authority to act as “reviewing civil rights official,” in accordance with 24 CFR 8.56(h), to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who in turn further redelegated that authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs and the Director of the Office of Enforcement. Since then, FHEO has created an Office of Systemic Investigations. Further, the FHEO Hub Directors' titles have been changed to FHEO Region Directors. The Assistant Secretary for FHEO therefore now revokes those prior redelegations and retains and redelegates authority as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with limited exceptions set forth in Section B, redelegates the authority to act as the “responsible civil rights official” and the “reviewing civil rights official” to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, including the authority to redelegate that authority. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and further redelegates the authority to act as the “responsible civil rights official” to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations, Director of the Office of Enforcement and the FHEO Region Directors. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and further redelegates the authority to act as “reviewing civil rights official,” in accordance with 24 CFR 8.56(h), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement and the Director of the Office of Systemic Investigation. Section B. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated from the Assistant Secretary for FHEO does not include the authority to issue or waive regulations. The authority redelegated from the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO does not include the authority, under 24 CFR 8.57(a) and

(e)(1), to determine that compliance cannot be effectuated through informal resolution, to terminate or refuse to grant or continue federal financial assistance for noncompliance under 24 CFR 8.57(c) and does not include the authority to further redelegate. Section C. Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24324 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-02] Revocation and Redelegation of Administrative Authority for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all redelegations of authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO and retains and redelegates this authority to act as the “responsible Department official,” with noted exceptions, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary, who in turn, retains and redelegates this authority, with noted exceptions to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, and the FHEO Region Directors. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By previous delegation, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity all authority to act as the “responsible Department official” in all matters relating to the carrying out of the requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and its implementing regulations (24 CFR part 1) except authority pertaining to tenant selection plans under 24 CFR 1.4(b)(2)(ii). (68 FR 43154, July 21, 2003). By previous redelegation (68 FR 45847, August 4, 2003), the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)redelegated this authority, with certain exceptions, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary, who in turn, redelegated certain authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, and the FHEO Hub Directors. Since then, FHEO has created the Office of Systemic Investigations. Further, the FHEO Hub Directors' titles have been changed to FHEO Region Directors. Accordingly, in this redelegation, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO revokes the August 4, 2003 and all other previous delegations and redelegates the authority to act as the “responsible Department official” under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and its implementing regulations and now retains and redelegates this authority as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated With certain exceptions noted in Section B, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO the authority, under Title VI as provided in 24 CFR part 1, to act as the “responsible Department official”' in matters delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO, including the authority to further redelegate this authority. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and further redelegates this authority, with noted exceptions in Section B, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement, Director of the Office of Systemic Investigations and the FHEO Region Directors. Section B. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated by the Assistant Secretary in this notice does not include the authority to issue or to waive regulations. The authority redelegated by the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO does not include the authority under 24 CFR 1.8(a) to refer to the Department of Justice

(DOJ)unresolved findings of non-compliance or seek other means of compliance, the authority under 24 CFR 1.8(c) to terminate, refuse to grant, or refuse to continue federal financial assistance, the authority under 24 CFR 1.8(d) to determine that compliance cannot be effectuated by informal means and does not include authority to further redelegate. Section C. Delegations of Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made by the Assistant Secretary for FHEO are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24328 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-05] Revocation and Redelegation of Authority for the Civil Rights Related Program Requirements of HUD Programs AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO regarding civil rights related program requirements of HUD programs to FHEO staff and retains and redelegates this authority, with noted exceptions, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary of FHEO, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Programs, and the FHEO Region Directors. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By previous delegation, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity certain authority regarding the Department's civil rights related program requirements (60 FR 14294, March 16, 1995). By previous redelegation (68 FR 45844, August 4, 2003), the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)redelegated the Assistant Secretary's authority regarding civil rights related program requirements of HUD programs to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary, who in turn, redelegated certain authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Programs, and the FHEO Hub Directors. Since then, the FHEO Hub Directors' titles were changed to FHEO Region Directors. The Assistant Secretary for FHEO, through this notice, retains and redelegates the authority regarding civil rights related program requirements of HUD programs to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Enforcement and the FHEO Region Directors. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO delegates authority as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated With certain exceptions noted in Section B, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO all authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO regarding civil rights related program requirements of HUD programs. This includes the authority to further redelegate. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary retains and redelegates this authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Director of the Office of Programs, and the FHEO Region Directors. Section B. Exceptions to Redelegation The authority delegated by the Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to issue or to waive regulations. The Authority redelegated from the General Deputy Assistant Secretary does not include the authority to further redelegate. Section C. Authority Revoked All prior redelegations of authority made by the Assistant Secretary for FHEO regarding civil rights related program requirements of HUD programs made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO are revoked, including, but not limited to, the redelegations at 68 FR 45844 published on August 4, 2003. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl L. Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24331 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-06] Revocation and Redelegation of Fair Housing Assistance Program Authority AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)revokes all prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under the Fair Housing Assistance Program with the exception of redelegation of authority to the FHEO Region Directors, as set forth in 24 CFR 115.101(b). The Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegates the authority in 24 CFR 115.101(b) and other authority, as set forth in this notice, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through regulation (24 CFR 115.101(a)), the Secretary delegated the authority and responsibility for administering the Fair Housing Assistance Program, as provided in 24 CFR part 115, to the Assistant Secretary for FHEO. Also through regulation (24 CFR 115.101(b)), the Assistant Secretary for FHEO retained and redelegated this authority to each Director of a Fair Housing Enforcement Center (now FHEO Region Directors). In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates this authority to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO and clarifies the change in title from “Fair Housing Enforcement Center Directors,” in 24 CFR Part 115, and “FHEO Hub Directors” to “FHEO Region Directors.” Section A. Authority Redelegated The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and redelegates the authority and responsibility for administering the Fair Housing Assistance Program, as provided in 24 CFR part 115 subparts A, B and C, to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary retains and redelegates the authority and responsibility for administering the Fair Housing Assistance Program, as provided in 24 CFR part 115 subparts A, B and C, with the exception of making final decisions concerning the granting and maintenance of substantial equivalency certification and interim certification in subpart B, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs and FHEO Region Directors. Section B. Clarification The redelegation of authority from the Assistant Secretary for FHEO to the Fair Housing Enforcement Center Directors, as set forth in 24 CFR 115.101(b) remains intact with the exception of the change in nomenclature from Fair Housing Enforcement Center Directors to FHEO Region Directors. Section C. Authority Excepted The authority redelegated in this notice does not include the authority to issue or waive regulations. Section D. Authority To Further Redelegate The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO may redelegate the authority provided in Section A of this notice. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs and FHEO Region Directors may not redelegate the authority provided in Section A of this notice. All prior redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO to administer the Fair Housing Assistance Program are revoked with the exception of the delegation of authority set forth in 24 CFR 115.101(b). Authority: Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Dated: May 31, 2007. Cheryl Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-24333 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5168-D-09] Revocation and Redelegation of Authority Under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 24 CFR 135.7, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO)has been delegated authority under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. In this document, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains those authorities and, with noted exceptions, redelegates them to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who retains and further redelegates certain authorities to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs. In addition, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs retains these authorities and further redelegates limited authorities to each of the FHEO Region Directors. Pursuant to this notice, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO also revokes the redelegation of authority published in the **Federal Register** on August 3, 2003 (68 FR 45848), and any other prior redelegations of authority pertaining to Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-0001, telephone

(202)619-8046 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 24 CFR 135.7, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO has been delegated all authority under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and its implementing regulations, 24 CFR part 135. The Assistant Secretary is further authorized to redelegate functions and responsibilities to other employees of HUD; provided however, that the authority to issue rules and regulations pursuant to Section 3 is not redelegated. In this redelegation of authority, except for noted exceptions, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO redelegates this authority to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO, who retains and further redelegates certain authorities to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs. In addition, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs retains and further redelegates limited authorities to each of the FHEO Region Directors. Recently, the Assistant Secretary for FHEO has shifted the complaint processing from HUD Headquarters to each of HUD's regional offices. This redelegation reflects those changes. Authority is redelegated as follows: Section A. Authority Redelegated to General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO The Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with certain noted exceptions, redelegates to the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO all authority under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and its implementing regulations. The authority redelegated does not include the authority to impose resolutions or sanctions in Section 3 complaint investigations pursuant to 24 CFR part 135.76(f)(2); or to issue rules, regulations or waivers pursuant to Section 3. This authority may be further redelegated to other FHEO employees. Section B. Authority Further Redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for FHEO retains and, with noted exceptions, redelegates to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs the authority for Section 3 complaint processing, pursuant to 24 CFR part 135.76, and the authority for Section 3 complaint reviews, pursuant to 24 CFR part 135.74. The authority redelegated does not include the authority to impose resolutions or sanctions pursuant to 24 CFR 135.76(f)(2). This authority may be further redelegated to other FHEO employees. Section C. Authority Further Redelegated to FHEO Region Directors Subject to noted exceptions, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs retains and redelegates to each of the FHEO Region Directors the authority for Section 3 complaint processing as provided in 24 CFR 135.76. The authority redelegated does not include the authority to review appeals to letters of determinations or appeals to resolutions; it also does not include the authority to impose resolutions or sanctions pursuant to 24 CFR 135.76(f)(2). This authority may not be further redelegated. Section E. Prior Redelegated Authority Revoked All previous redelegations of authority made within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for FHEO under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, including the redelegation published in the **Federal Register** at 68 FR 45848 on August 3, 2003 are revoked. Authority: Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Dated: November 21, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Cheryl L. Ziegler, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Bryan Greene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs. [FR Doc. E7-24341 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NV-912-1640-PH; 08-08807; TAS: 14X1109] Notice Public Meetings: Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Fiscal Year 2008 Meetings Locations and Times for the Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below. DATES AND TIMES: The RAC will meet three times in Fiscal Year 2008: On February 21, at the BLM Ely Field Office at 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada; on April 24, at the BLM Battle Mountain Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada; and on June 19 and 20, at the Cactus Pete Resort, 1385 Highway 93, Jackpot, Nevada. All meetings are open to the public. Meeting times are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and will include a general public comment period, where the public may submit oral or written comments to the RAC. Each public comment period will begin at approximately 1 p.m. unless otherwise listed in each specific, final meeting agenda. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Brown, Public Affairs Officer, Elko Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801. Telephone:

(775)753-0386. E-mail: *mbrown@nv.blm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to: • February 21, (Ely, Nevada)—NEPA, Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition, Grazing Permit Renewals, Ely RMP, and Healthy Lands Initiative; • April 24, (Battle Mountain, Nevada)—Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act Projects, Split Estate, Energy Projects (Wind, Solar, and Geothermal), and Southern Nevada Water Authority Project; • June 19 and 20, (Jackpot, Nevada)—Wind Energy Tour, Fire, Western Watersheds Project, Battle Mountain RMP update, and Grazing Permit Renewal; Managers' reports of field office activities will be given at each meeting. The council may raise other topics at any of the three planned meetings. Final detailed agendas, with any additions/corrections to agenda topics, locations, field trips and meeting times, will be sent to local and regional media sources at least 14 days before each meeting. Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, should contact Mike Brown, Elko Field Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801, telephone

(775)753-0386 no later than 10 days prior to each meeting. Dated: December 7, 2007. Kenneth E. Miller, District Manager. [FR Doc. E7-24322 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA-930-1430-PN-252Z; CACA 49299] Conveyance of Mineral Interests in California AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of realty action. SUMMARY: An application has been filed for the conveyance of the federally owned mineral interest in the tract of land described below in this notice. Publication of this notice temporarily segregates the mineral interests in the public lands covered by the application from appropriation under the mining and mineral leasing laws while the application is being processed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Doyel, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825,

(916)978-4649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The tract of land referred to above in this notice consists of 400 acres of land, situated in Nevada County, and is described as follows: Humboldt Meridian, California T. 1 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 22, E 1/2 SW 1/4 Sec. 33, E 1/2 SE 1/4 Sec. 35, NE 1/4 , E 1/2 SE 1/4 Under certain conditions, Section 209(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes the sale and conveyance of the federally owned mineral interests in land when the non-mineral, or so called “surface” interest in the land is not federally owned. The objective is to allow consolidation of the surface and mineral interests when either one of the following conditions exist:

(1)There are no known mineral values in the land; or

(2)where continued Federal ownership of the mineral interests interferes with or precludes appropriate non-mineral development and such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development. In accordance with section 209(b) of the 1976 Act, on May 25, 2006, an application was filed for the sale and conveyance of the federally owned mineral interest in the above-described tract of land. Publication of this notice segregates, subject to valid existing rights, the federally owned mineral interests in the public lands referenced above in this notice from appropriation under the general mining and mineral leasing laws, while the application is being processed to determine if either one of the two specified conditions exists and, if so, to otherwise comply with the procedural requirements of 43 CFR part 2720. The segregative effect shall terminate:

(i)Upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance as to such mineral interests;

(ii)upon final rejection of the application; or

(i)Upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance as to such mineral interests;

(ii)upon final rejection of the application; or

(iii)two years from the date of filing the application, whichever occurs first. (Authority: 43 CFR 2720.1-1(b)) Dated: December 7, 2007. Robert M. Doyel, Chief, Branch of Lands Management. [FR Doc. E7-24426 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before December 1, 2007. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by January 2, 2008. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. ARIZONA Coconino County Kane Ranch Headquarters, Approx. 11 mi. S of U.S. 89A on Forest Rd. 8910, House Rock Valley, 07001348. Picture Canyon Archaeological Site, Address Restricted, Flagstaff, 07001349. CALIFORNIA Alameda County Berkeley High School Campus Historic District, 1980 Allston Way, Berkeley, 07001350. Hagemann Ranch Historic District, 455 Olivina Ave., Livermore, 07001351. Monterey County Carmel Vally Road—Boronda Road Eucalyptus Tree Row, Carmel Valley Rd. & Boronda Rd., Carmel Valley, 07001352. San Bernardino County Bono's Restaurant and Deli, 15395 Foothill Blvd., Fontana, 07001353. COLORADO Rio Blanco County. Pyramid Guard Station, Co. Rd. 8, Yampa, 07001354. CONNECTICUT Fairfield County Tod's Point Historic District, Tod's Driftway, Greenwich, 07001355. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Washington Navy Yard (Boundary Increase), Generally bounded by M St., Anacostia Rd., Isaac Hull Ave. & 2nd St. SE., Washington, 07001356. FLORIDA Hamilton County Jennings High School, 1291 Florida St., Jennings, 07001357. IOWA Polk County Baker—DeVotie—Hollingsworth Block (Boundary Increase), 516-526 E. Grand Ave., Des Moines, 07001358. Woodbury County Sioux City Linseed Oil Works, 210 Court St., Sioux City, 07001359. MASSACHUSETTS Hampshire County Ross Farm, (Underground Railroad in Massachusetts MPS). 123 Meadow St., Northampton, 07001360. Plymouth County East Rochester Church and Cemetery Historic District, 355 County Rd., Rochester, 07001361. Worcester County Whitmore, Enoch, House, (Underground Railroad in Massachusetts MPS). 12 Daniels Ln., Ashburnham, 07001362. MONTANA Chouteau County First National Bank of Geraldine, 311 Main St., Geraldine, 07001363. Madison County Ferris—Hermsmeyer—Fenton, 144 Duncan District Rd., Sheridan, 07001364. NEW YORK Greene County Allan Teator Road Stone Arch Bridge, Allan Teator Rd., West Durham, 07001365. Croswell—Parsons Paper Mill Ruin, NY 144, New Baltimore, 07001366. Hervey Street Road Stone Arch Bridge, Hervey Street Rd., & Hervey Street-Sunside Rd., Hervey Street, 07001367. Shady Glen Road Stone Arch Bridge, Shady Glen Rd. at Stone Bridge Rd., Cornwallville, 07001368. Rensselaer County Clark—Dearstyne—Miller Inn, 11-13 Forbes Ave., Rensselaer, 07001369. Schoharie County Livingstonville Community Church, 1667 Hauverville Rd., Livingstonville, 07001370 NORTH CAROLINA Davidson County Erlanger Mill Village Historic District, Roughly bounded by Winston Rd., Short, 7th, Hames, Second Rainbow, Park Circle, & Olympia Sts., Lexington, 07001371. Durham County Trinity Historic District (Boundary Increase II), (Durham MRA), 209-215 N. Gregson St., Durham, 07001372. Franklin County Vann, Aldridge H., House, 115 N. Main St., Franklinton, 07001373. Gaston County Central School, 317 Washington Ave., Bessemer City, 07001374. Harnett County Melvin, Dr. Wayman C. House, 6386 NC 217, Linden, 07001375. Lincoln County Reinhardt—Craig House, Kiln and Pottery Shop, 3171 Cat Square Rd., Vale, 07001376. OREGON Multnomah County Bowman, John and Ellen, House, (Architecture of Ellis F. Lawrence MPS), 1719 NE. Knott St., Portland, 07001377. Kern, Grace, House, 1740 SW. West Point Ct., Portland, 07001378 PENNSYLVANIA Bucks County Springtown Historic District, Main St. between Drifting Dr. & Springtown Hill Rd. (Springfield Township), Springtown, 07001379. Somerset County Shade Furnace Archaeological District, (Iron and Steel Resources of Pennsylvania MPS), Address Restricted, Reitz, 07001380. RHODE ISLAND Providence County Weybosset Mills Complex, Dike, Oak, Magnolia, Agnes & Troy Sts., Providence, 07001381. TENNESSEE Bradley County Cleveland to Charleston Concrete Highway, Market & Water Sts., Charleston, 07001382. TEXAS Dallas County Greenway Parks Historic District, (Historic Residential Suburbs in the United States, 1830-1960 MPS) Bounded by W. Mockingbird Ln., W. University Blvd., Inwood & N. Dallas Tollway., Dallas, 07001383. Harris County Texas State Hotel, 720 Fannin, Houston, 07001384. WASHINGTON Pierce County Lord—Heuston House, 2902 N. Cedar St., Tacoma, 07001385. Manley—Thompson Ford Agency, 1302-1306 Fawcett Ave., Tacoma, 07001386. Skamania County Underwood, Edward and Isabelle, Farm—Five Oaks Farm, 851 Orchard Ln., Underwood, 07001387. WISCONSIN Fond Du Lac County Brandon Village Hall and Library, 117 E. Main St., Brandon, 07001388. [FR Doc. E7-24294 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332-496] Caribbean Region: Review of Economic Growth and Development AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation and scheduling of hearing. SUMMARY: Following receipt of a request on November 7, 2007, from the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-496, *Caribbean Region: Review of Economic Growth and Development.* DATES: January 16, 2008: Deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing. January 22, 2008: Deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements. January 29, 2008: Public hearing. February 5, 2008: Deadline for filing post-hearing briefs and statements and all other written submissions. May 7, 2008: Transmittal of Commission report to Committee on Ways and Means. ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project leaders Walker Pollard (202-205-3228 or *walker.pollard@usitc.gov* ) or Nannette Christ (202-205-3263 or *nannette.christ@usitc.gov* ) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of this investigation, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or *william.gearhart@usitc.gov* ). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819 or *margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov* ). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. *Background:* As requested by the Committee, the Commission will conduct an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and prepare a report that provides

(1)an in-depth description of the current level of economic development in the Caribbean basin, and

(2)an overview of the economic literature on potential Caribbean development. The Committee requested that the Commission institute a fact-finding investigation to provide a report containing information that will assist the Committee in identifying the ways that U.S. trade and aid policy can most help the Caribbean Basin. The Committee noted that the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) will expire on September 30, 2008 (ending temporary trade preferences for imports of apparel, petroleum and petroleum products, and several other products not otherwise eligible for preferences under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA)). In its request letter, the Committee noted the importance of economic development in the Caribbean region, and also noted that, despite many successes, parts of the region still lack the economic development that will allow a wider population in CBERA countries to compete globally and become strong economic and political partners for the United States. The Committee expressed a need, in deciding on the best policy moving forward, to examine past successes and failures of the region's economic growth. The letter further notes that there are companies in the Caribbean that have found creative ways to use the region's strengths to overcome its constraints and compete successfully in the global market, and that their success may suggest ways that U.S. policy can best assist the region. *Current level of Caribbean economic development.* With respect to the current level of Caribbean economic development, the report will provide an overview of the current level of economic development in the Caribbean, at the regional level and the country level. To the extent possible, the regional level overview will include: • Data on standard indicators of economic development in the Caribbean region; • Data relating to the importance of trade, especially with the United States, in the economies of countries in the region; and • Data on the extent of utilization of CBERA preferences, including the textile and apparel provisions. The country level overview will include country profiles of the 18 non-DR-CAFTA CBERA countries. For each country, the Commission in the report will, to the extent possible, seek to: • Identify the major industries/sectors, by output, exports, employment, and wages and also indicate the extent to which people in each country live in economic conditions below poverty levels; • Identify the division of output, employment, and exports between agriculture, services, and manufacturing; • Identify the industries/sectors (if any) that have been particularly successful in attracting investment, creating jobs and exports, and raising the standard of living for a broad portion of the population. The Commission will, if it finds it feasible, include brief case studies of successful industries that have been able to compete globally despite small size or capacity constraints, with an eye toward identifying what enabled these smaller industries to be successful; and • Identify the non-trade-related factors that have had major impacts on the country's economic development. *Overview of economic literature on potential Caribbean development.* The report will also summarize the literature assessing the direction of future Caribbean development, and in particular, articles that address the following: • Economic development policies that have been tried in the Caribbean, including how these policies have fared, the extent to which progress reached a broad portion of the population, the role of international financial institutions, and the major impediments to further economic development in the region today; • The importance of trade liberalization and subsequent trade growth to progress in economic development; • The extent to which trade growth allowed goods and services providers in CBERA countries to move to production that yields higher value-added per worker and/or higher wages for workers, and whether there is evidence that trade growth has contributed to poverty reduction, faster economic growth, or other aspects of economic development; • The industries/sectors that may show promise for output, job, and export creation in the Caribbean, based either on the success of those industries/sectors in other Caribbean countries or the success of those industries/sectors in other world regions with similar national economic characteristics. Identify

(1)industries/sectors that bring widespread benefits,

(2)smaller industries/sectors that are globally competitive,

(3)the potential for a hub-and-spoke system in the region, and

(4)industries/sectors that are non-traditional in the region; • The extent to which Caribbean goods and services industries/sectors compete in the global economy against other countries' goods and services, as well as the major impediments to the global competitiveness of Caribbean goods and services. • The extent to which agreements such as NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, the International Technology Agreement, and CAFTA have affected Caribbean trade with the United States. • Countries that have benefited from CBERA preferences, and from CBERA textile and apparel preferences in particular. Describe the extent to which these preferences

(1)allowed these countries to move into production that yields higher value-added per worker and/or higher wages, and

(2)attracted industries other than apparel and textiles; • The extent of loans and other financial support provided by the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank; • Types of policies that might encourage a wider use of the CBERA program. • Ways that U.S. trade policy, including through preference programs and trade expansion, as well as economic aid (e.g., financial aid for training, technical assistance, etc.) as part of a coordinated policy, might strengthen the ability of the region to compete globally in terms of increasing output, employment, and exports. • Identify ways that U.S. trade policy liberalization, special tax preference programs, and/or economic aid might help Caribbean countries to develop new industries that will improve the Caribbean standard of living. • Identify U.S. investment or services trade liberalization policies that could assist the Caribbean region, if those policies will benefit a broad base of the populations of the affected countries. As requested by the Committee, the Commission will provide its report by May 7, 2008. *Public Hearing:* A public hearing in connection with this investigation will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 29, 2008. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, no later than 5:15 p.m., January 16, 2008, in accordance with the requirements in the “Submissions” section below. All pre-hearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., January 22, 2008, and all post-hearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., February 5, 2008. In the event that, as of the close of business on January 16, 2008, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant may call the Secretary to the Commission (202-205-2000) after January 16, 2008, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held. *Written Submissions:* In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to submit written statements concerning this investigation. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, and should be received not later than 5:15 p.m., February 5, 2008. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's *Rules of Practice and Procedure* (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 requires that a signed original (or a copy so designated) and fourteen

(14)copies of each document be filed. In the event that confidential treatment of a document is requested, at least four

(4)additional copies must be filed, in which the confidential information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, *http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf* ). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the *Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure* (19 CFR. 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties. Committee staff has indicated that the Committee intends to make the Commission's report available to the public in its entirety, and has asked that the Commission not include any confidential business information or national security classified information in the report that the Commission sends to the Committee. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing this report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 11, 2007. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-24287 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-07-028] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade Commission. Time and Date: December 19, 2007 at 11 a.m. Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:

(202)205-2000. Status: Open to the public. Matters To Be Considered 1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Preliminary) (Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 26, 2007; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before January 3, 2008.) 5. Outstanding action jackets: (1). Document No. GC-07-225 (Administrative matter). (2). Document No. GC-07-232 (Proposed rulemaking in regard to section 337 investigations under 19 CFR parts 201 and 210). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 12, 2007. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. E7-24429 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0292] Bureau of Justice Statistics; Agency Information Collection Activities: Existing Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Survey of Sexual Violence. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 72, Number 196, page 57962-57963, on October 11, 2007, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until January 16, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Paige Harrison, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 ( *phone:* 202-514-0809). Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Existing collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Survey on Sexual Violence.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection* : *Form Number* : SSV1, SSV2, SSV3, SSV4, SSV5, SSV6; SSV-IA, SSV-IJ; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract* : *Primary:* State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Other:* Federal Government, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. The data will be used to develop estimates for the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault within correctional facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-79).

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* It is estimated that 912 respondents will complete each summary form within 60 minutes and each substantiated incident form (as needed, we estimate about 950 forms will be completed) in 15 minutes.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 1,150 total annual burden hours associated with this collection. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: December 12, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-24360 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [OMB Number 1117-0024] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Reports of Suspicious Orders or Theft/Loss of Listed Chemicals/Machines. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 15, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Mark W. Caverly, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Reports of Suspicious Orders or Theft/Loss of Listed Chemicals/Machines.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* *Form Number:* Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Business or other for-profit. *Other:* None. *Abstract:* Persons handling listed chemicals and tableting and encapsulating machines are required to report thefts, losses and suspicious orders pertaining to these items. These reports provide DEA with information regarding possible diversion to illicit drug manufacture.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* DEA estimates that 2,000 persons respond as needed to this collection. Responses take 15 minutes.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* DEA estimates that this collection takes 500 annual burden hours. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: December 11, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-24374 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comments Requested ACTION: 60-day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Applicant Questionnaire: Race, National Origin, Gender, and Disability Demographics. The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Human Resources Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and other government agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 15, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information should be directed to Angela Graham, Human Resources Specialist, Human Resources Management Section (HRMS), Human Resources Division (HRD), Staffing Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room GP-702B, Washington, DC 20636. To view the proposed collection instrument with instructions on online, please visit the following link: *http://www.fbi.gov/fbijobs_proposedcollection.htm.* Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Submit your comments to *angela.graham@ic.fbi.gov.* Comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)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 a practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the propose collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)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 of other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information collection:

(1)*Type of information collection:* Approval of new collection.

(2)*The title of the form/collection:* Applicant Questionnaire: Race, National Origin, Gender, and Disability Demographics.

(3)*The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection:* Form 3-873 (Demographic Information) Human Resources Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract* : Any person applying registering and/or applying for a position at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Abstract: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Management Directive 715 (MD 715), requires agencies to maintain a system that:

(1)Collects and maintains accurate information on race, national origin, gender and disability of an agency in accordance with 29 CFR, paragraph 1614.601;

(2)tracks applicant flow data, which identifies applicants by race, national origin, gender, and disability status and disposition of applications; and,

(3)tracks recruitment activities to permit analyses of these efforts in any examination of potential barriers to equality of opportunity. Agencies must also “conduct an internal review and analysis of the effects of all current and proposed policies, practices, and conditions that directly or indirectly,” related to the employment of individuals with disabilities based on their race, national origin, gender and disabilities. However, an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In order to comply with MD 715, the FBI is requesting clearance from OMB in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Once cleared for use, the form will be used to collect race, national origin, gender, and disability demographic information from applicants registering in the FBI's automated hiring system. All job applicants, whether internal or external, would be asked to complete, on a voluntary basis, an “Applicant Questionnaire: Race, National Origin, Gender, and Disability Demographics.” The FBI must collect and evaluate information and data necessary to make an informed assessment the extent to which the Agency is meeting its responsibility to provide employment opportunities for qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, especially those with target disabilities.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for or an average respondent to respond* : Total number of respondents: 609,246. *Frequency of response* : One time completion of questionnaire per respondent. *Estimated time for average respondent to respond* : 5 minutes.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with this collection* : There are approximately 50,505 annual burden hours associated with this collection.

(7)*An estimate of the total annual cost* : None. If any additional information is required contact Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Suite 1600, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: December 11, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-24378 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OMB Number 1121-0291] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: National Juvenile Probation Census Project. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(202)395-7285. Requests of written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* New.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* National Juvenile Probation Census Project which consists of two forms: Census of Juvenile Probation Supervision Offices (CJPSO) and Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP).

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* Form Numbers: CJ-16 (CJPSO) and CJ-17 (CJP). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract* : *Primary:* State, Local or Tribal Governments. *Other:* N/A. This project consists of two forms that will be sent to juvenile geographic probation supervision areas (GPSAs), on alternate years. The CJPSO will collect information regarding the activities of juvenile probation offices nationwide; the CJP will collect information regarding the number and characteristics of juveniles on probation.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* The CJPSO response burden is estimated at .75 hours per response. The study will first field test the CJPSO form on a sample of 336 juvenile GPSAs. Then the form will be sent to all 1,715 juvenile GPSAs. The following year, approximately 500 of the 1,715 will also be asked to complete the CJP, at an estimate of 5.5 hours per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 4,289 public burden hours associated with the CJPSO and CJP collections. *If additional information is required contact:* Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: December 12, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-24358 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-17; Grant of Individual Exemptions Involving; D-11390, BSC Services Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan), PTE 2007-17; D-11402 and D-11403, Owens Corning Savings Plan and Owens Corning Savings and Security Plan (Collectively, the Plans), PTE 2007-18; D-11405, Middleburg Trust Company (Middleburg), PTE 2007-19; D-11420, BlackRock, Inc (BlackRock), and Merrill Lynch & Co. (Merrill Lynch) (Collectively, the Applicants), PTE 2007-20; D-11441, Gastroenterology and Oncology Associates, P.A. (the Plan), 2007-21 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions. SUMMARY: This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). A notice was published in the **Federal Register** of the pendency before the Department of a proposal to grant such exemption. The notice set forth a summary of facts and representations contained in the application for exemption and referred interested persons to the application for a complete statement of the facts and representations. The application has been available for public inspection at the Department in Washington, DC. The notice also invited interested persons to submit comments on the requested exemption to the Department. In addition the notice stated that any interested person might submit a written request that a public hearing be held (where appropriate). The applicant has represented that it has complied with the requirements of the notification to interested persons. No requests for a hearing were received by the Department. Public comments were received by the Department as described in the granted exemption. The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor. Statutory Findings In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:

(a)The exemption is administratively feasible;

(b)The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and

(c)The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan. BSC Services Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan), Located in Philadelphia, PA [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-17; Exemption Application No. D-11390] Exemption Section I—Covered Transactions The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 407(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, 1 by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply, effective April 27, 2006, to

(1)the acquisition by the Plan of certain stock rights (the Rights) pursuant to a stock rights offering (the Offering) from First Bank of Delaware (the Bank), a party in interest and the parent company of BSC Services Corp., which is the Plan sponsor as well as a party in interest with respect to the Plan;

(2)the holding of the Rights by the Plan during the subscription period of the Offering; and

(3)the disposition or exercise of the Rights by the Plan. 1 For purposes of this exemption, references to provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code. Section II—Conditions This exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following conditions:

(a)The Rights were acquired by the Plan pursuant to Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts.

(b)The Plan's receipt of the Rights occurred in connection with the Rights Offering made available to all shareholders of the Bank's common stock (the Bank Stock).

(c)All decisions regarding the holding and disposition of the Rights by the Plan were made in accordance with Plan provisions for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts by the individual participants whose accounts in the Plan received Rights in the Offering, and if no instructions were received, the Rights expired.

(d)The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted from an independent act of the Bank as a corporate entity, and all holders of the Rights, including the Plan, were treated in the same manner with respect to the acquisition, holding and disposition of such Rights.

(e)The Plan received the same proportionate number of the Rights as other owners of Bank Stock. *Effective Date:* This exemption is effective as of April 27, 2006. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on July 2, 2007 at 72 FR 36059. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department, telephone number

(202)693-8556. (This is not a toll-free number.) Owens Corning Savings Plan and Owens Corning Savings and Security Plan (Collectively, the Plans), Located in Toledo, Ohio [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-18; Exemption Application Numbers D-11402 and D-11403, respectively] Exemption The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply, effective October 31, 2006, to:

(1)The acquisition by the Plans of certain warrants (the Warrants) issued by Owens Corning (the Applicant), a party in interest with respect to the Plans, where such Warrants have been issued in exchange for the common stock (the Old Common Stock) of the Applicant incident to a bankruptcy reorganization;

(2)the holding of the Warrants by each of the Plans pending the exercise or other disposition of said Warrants;

(3)the exercise of the Warrants by participants in the Plans to permit acquisition of shares of the Applicant's new common stock (the New Common Stock). In addition, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) through

(D)of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(D)of the Code, shall not apply, effective October 31, 2006, to the sale or disposition of the Warrants by participants in the Plans through a broker-dealer acting as an agent on behalf of such participants. Conditions

(a)Other than the right to vote on the Reorganization Plan, the Plans had no ability to affect the provisions of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Owens Corning and Its Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession (the Reorganization Plan) approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court) on September 26, 2006 pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code);

(b)The acquisition and holding of the Warrants by the Plans occurred in connection with the Reorganization Plan, in which all holders of the Applicant's stock of the same class have been and will be treated similarly;

(c)The Warrants were acquired automatically and without any action on the part of the Plans;

(d)The Plans did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition or holding of the Warrants;

(e)The Plans will not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the exercise of the Warrants;

(f)All decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants of the Plans in whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the respective provisions of the Plans pertaining to the individually-directed investment of such accounts, subject to the duty of the fiduciaries of the Plans to take action consistent with sections 403 and 404 of the Act, in the event the current market price for the New Common Stock is below $45.25 per share (the Strike Price) at the time of participant exercise or in the event that it becomes clear that the Warrants would otherwise expire “in the money” unexercised by participants; and

(g)The terms and conditions applicable to the sale of the Warrants by participants in the Plans have been and will be at least as favorable to the Plans as those that would have been obtained in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party. Written Comments The Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice), published in the **Federal Register** on July 2, 2007, stated that the Applicant would distribute the Notice to interested persons within fifteen

(15)days of its publication in the **Federal Register** ; the Notice also invited all interested persons to submit written comments and requests for a hearing to the Department concerning the proposed exemption within forty-five

(45)days of the date of its publication. Shortly after the Notice was published in the **Federal Register** , the Applicant requested that the Department extend the foregoing deadlines for notification to interested persons. The Department agreed to this request, and advised the Applicant that notification to interested persons be provided no later than August 16, 2007. The Department received a written certification from the Applicant dated August 17, 2007 confirming that the Notice and the accompanying supplemental statement had been distributed to interested persons on August 15, 2007 via first class mail. During the comment period, the Department received two written comments concerning the Notice. One comment, submitted by a former employee of the Applicant, expressed opposition to the proposed exemption, but did not offer any information or rationale in support of this viewpoint. The second comment received by the Department was submitted by the Applicant. In its comment, the Applicant represented that although it had originally requested exemptive relief from the Department for the acquisition, holding, exercise, and other disposition of the Warrants (including the sale of the Warrants to third parties), the Notice did not contain relief for the disposition of the Warrants. In this regard, the Applicant also expressed its understanding that securities traded through the Pink Sheets (such as the Warrants) may be sold in the context of either principal transactions (wherein a market maker or broker purchases the security for its own account) or agency transactions (wherein the broker acts as agent for a non-broker purchaser). In either instance, the commenter stated, it was possible that the purchaser of the Warrants could be a party in interest with respect to the plan. Further, the Applicant commented that neither Part II nor Part IV of PTE 75-1 (40 FR 50845, October 31, 1975, as amended at 71 FR 5883, February 3, 2006) would provide relief from the restriction of section 406(a) of the Act for an agency transaction involving the Warrants. In this connection, the Applicant expressed the view that it would not be in the interests of the Plans or of the Plans' participants to limit the potential purchasers of the Warrants to market makers or other brokers who could rely on PTE 75-1. The Applicant also commented that the applicability of section 408(b)(17) of the Act to the transactions described in the proposed exemption was problematic because certain interpretive issues may be raised in applying the adequate consideration condition contained therein, particularly in the case of participant-directed plans and/or securities not traded on an exchange. The Applicant also commented that Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC (Fidelity), which is not affiliated with the Applicant, will process the Warrant sales “in accordance with its customary provisions for the execution of securities transactions in the over the counter [OTC] market and neither [the Applicant] nor any affiliate will have any role in that process.” Based on the foregoing considerations, the Applicant requested in its comment that the Department modify the proposed exemption by

(1)permitting relief from the applicable restrictions of the Act and the Code for the sale or disposition of the Warrants and

(2)limiting such relief to those sales transactions that are “at least as favorable to the Plan as an arms” length transaction with an unrelated party would be.” 2 2 On November 22, 2007, the Department received a written communication from the Applicant stating that the New Common Stock became an investment option for participants in the Plans as of November 6, 2007. The Applicant further represented that this development does not affect the rights of participants in the Plans with respect to the Warrants held in their respective accounts (i.e., the participants will continue to have the ability to sell or exercise the Warrants). In response to the Applicant's request, the Department has determined to grant exemptive relief to the Applicant for the sale or disposition of the Warrants by participants in the Plans provided that such sale or disposition was effected through a broker-dealer acting as an agent on behalf of such participants. In addition, the Department has determined to add a condition (Condition (g)) to the exemption which stipulates that such relief is only available where “the terms and conditions applicable to the sale of the Warrants by participants in the Plans have been and will be at least as favorable to the Plans as those that would have been obtained in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party.” Condition

(a)of the proposed exemption (located in the first column on page 36058 of the July 2, 2007 edition of the **Federal Register** ) states that “[t]he Plans had no ability to affect the provisions of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Owens Corning and its Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession (the Reorganization Plan) approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court) on September 26, 2006 pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code).” The Applicant suggested that, “[f]or the purpose of clarity,” Condition

(a)of the proposed exemption should be modified by the Department by inserting the words “Other than the right to vote on the Reorganization Plan” at the beginning of the condition. The Department has agreed to adopt the Applicant's request concerning this matter. Condition

(f)of the proposed exemption (located in the second column on page 36058) states that “[a]ll decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants in the Plans in whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the respective provisions of the Plans pertaining to the individually-directed investment of such accounts.” The Applicant suggested in its comment that Condition

(f)of the proposed exemption should be modified by the Department to read as follows: “All decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants of the Plans to whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, subject to the duty of the Plan fiduciaries to take action with respect to the employer securities held by the Plans pursuant to sections 403 and 404 of ERISA, and the right of the Plan sponsor to amend the Plans.” The Applicant commented that such a revision is necessary to confirm that the relief provided by the exemption would still be available even if the fiduciaries of the Plans were required to exercise their fiduciary duty with respect to the Warrants (as noted by the Department in footnote 10 of the proposed exemption, located at the bottom of page 36059, which states that “[t]he Applicant acknowledges that the appropriate fiduciaries of the Plans shall be responsible for monitoring the investment options available to participants in the Plans, and taking such action as they deem appropriate under the circumstances.” Such action may include preventing participants from exercising the Warrants if the current market price for the Common Stock is below the Strike Price, or causing the Plans to sell the Warrants in the event that it becomes clear that they would otherwise expire unexercised by participants. After due consideration of this comment, the Department has decided to modify the text of Condition

(f)of the exemption to read as follows: “All decisions regarding the exercise or other disposition of the Warrants have been and will be made by the individual participants of the Plans in whose accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the respective provisions of the Plans pertaining to the individually-directed investment of such accounts, subject to the duty of the fiduciaries of the Plans to take action consistent with sections 403 and 404 of the Act, in the event the current market price for the New Common Stock is below $45.25 per share (the Strike Price) at the time of participant exercise or in the event that it becomes clear that the Warrants would otherwise expire ‘in the money’ unexercised by participants.” In this regard, the Department notes that no relief is provided under this final exemption for the plan fiduciaries to overrule the direction of participants, unless the direction or lack of direction is clearly imprudent under the particular circumstances. The Applicant also provided a comment concerning the content of footnote 8 of the Notice (located at the bottom of the first column on page 36059), which states that “[b]ased on the Applicant's representations, to the extent the Warrants are publicly traded on a national exchange to unrelated third parties, no exemptive relief is being provided by the Department.” In this regard, the Applicant represented in its comment that the Warrants are not traded on a national exchange. The Department concurs with the Applicant, and hereby deletes footnote 8 in its entirety. The Applicant also made two additional suggestions for technical revisions to the proposed exemption. In the fifth sentence of the second paragraph of the “Summary of Facts and Representations” section of the proposed exemption (located in the second column of page 36058), the following language appears: “The Reorganization Plan became effective on October 31, 2006, at which time the Old Common Stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and all outstanding shares of the Old Common Stock were cancelled.” The Applicant has now advised the Department in its comment that the Old Common Stock was delisted some time before October 31, 2006, the date on which it was cancelled. In addition, the Applicant suggested modification of the content of the seventh sentence of the same paragraph (located in the third column of page 36058), which states that “[t]he Applicant represents that the Warrants do not constitute qualifying employer securities as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the Act.” In this connection, the Applicant commented that “it did not concede in its [a]pplication [for exemption] that the Warrants ‘do not constitute’ qualifying employer securities, but indicated that they may not be.” After due consideration, the Department has adopted these clarifications requested by the Applicant. Therefore, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has determined to grant the exemption subject to the modifications described herein. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published in the **Federal Register** on July 2, 2007 at 72 FR 36058. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Judge of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8339. (This is not a toll-free number). Middleburg Trust Company (Middleburg), Located in Richmond, VA [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-19; Application No. D-11405] Exemption The sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the past sale, on March 28, 2006, by the William T. Smith IRA (the IRA) 3 of certain bonds (the Bonds) to Middleburg, a disqualified person with respect to the IRA, provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 3 Pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3-2(d), the IRA is not within the jurisdiction of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act). However, there is jurisdiction under Title II of the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

(a)The sale was a one-time transaction for cash;

(b)The purchase price for the Bonds was based on the Bonds' face value;

(c)The Bonds' face value was in excess of bids for the Bonds solicited from independent brokers and in excess of the price for the Bonds quoted by an independent valuation service for the date of the sale;

(d)Neither the IRA nor Mr. William T. Smith, the owner of the IRA, paid any fees, commissions, or other costs or expenses associated with the sale;

(e)The IRA received its portion of income and all interest accrued on the Bonds through the date of the sale;

(f)The terms and conditions of the sale were at least as favorable to the IRA as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party; and

(g)Within 30 days of the publication of the grant notice in the **Federal Register** , Middleburg will pay the IRA $196.53 to make up for the loss sustained by the IRA as a result of the sale. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on October 26, 2007 at 72 FR 60904. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Blessed Chuksorji of the Department, telephone number

(202)693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number). BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock), and Merrill Lynch & Co. (Merrill Lynch) (Collectively, the Applicants), Located in New York, New York [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-20 Application No. D-11420] Exemption Section I—Transactions The restrictions of section 406 of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(F)of the Code, shall not apply to the purchase of certain securities (the Securities), as defined, below in Section III(k), by an Asset Manager, as defined, below, in Section III(f), from any person other than a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity or Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entities, as defined, below, in Section III(c), during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate with respect to such Securities, where a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, as defined, below, in Section III(b), is a manager or member of such syndicate and the Asset Manager purchases such Securities, as a fiduciary:

(a)On behalf of an employee benefit plan or employee benefit plans (Client Plan(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(h); or

(b)On behalf of Client Plans, and/or In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(o), which are invested in a pooled fund or in pooled funds (Pooled Fund(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(i); provided that the conditions as set forth, below, in Section II, are satisfied (Transactions described in Section I(a) and

(b)are referred to herein as an affiliated underwriter transaction(s) (AUT(s)). 4 4 For purposes of this exemption an In-House Plan may engage in AUT's only through investment in a Pooled Fund. Section II—Conditions The exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following requirements: (a)(1) The Securities to be purchased are either—

(i)Part of an issue registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ). If the Securities to be purchased are part of an issue that is exempt from such registration requirement, such Securities:

(A)Are issued or guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States,

(B)Are issued by a bank,

(C)Are exempt from such registration requirement pursuant to a federal statute other than the 1933 Act, or

(D)Are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) (15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety

(90)days immediately preceding the sale of such Securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed thereunder with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC)during the preceding twelve

(12)months; or

(ii)Part of an issue that is an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4)). Where the Eligible Rule 144A Offering of the Securities is of equity securities, the offering syndicate shall obtain a legal opinion regarding the adequacy of the disclosure in the offering memorandum;

(2)The Securities to be purchased are purchased prior to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities, except that—

(i)If such Securities are offered for subscription upon exercise of rights, they may be purchased on or before the fourth day preceding the day on which the rights offering terminates; or

(ii)If such Securities are debt securities, they may be purchased at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities and may be purchased on a day subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, provided that the interest rates, as of the date of such purchase, on comparable debt securities offered to the public subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made and prior to the purchase date are less than the interest rate of the debt Securities being purchased; and

(3)The Securities to be purchased are offered pursuant to an underwriting or selling agreement under which the members of the syndicate are committed to purchase all of the Securities being offered, except if—

(i)Such Securities are purchased by others pursuant to a rights offering; or

(ii)Such Securities are offered pursuant to an over-allotment option.

(b)The issuer of the Securities to be purchased pursuant to this exemption must have been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, unless the Securities to be purchased—

(1)Are non-convertible debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Fitch Ratings, Inc., Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto (collectively, the Rating Organizations); provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or

(2)Are debt securities issued or fully guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States; or

(3)Are debt securities which are fully guaranteed by a person (the Guarantor) that has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, provided that such Guarantor has issued other securities registered under the 1933 Act; or if such Guarantor has issued other securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, such Guarantor has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, and such Guarantor:

(a)Is a bank, or

(b)Is an issuer of securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, pursuant to a Federal statute other than the 1933 Act; or

(c)Is an issuer of securities that are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act)(15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety

(90)days immediately preceding the sale of such securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed hereunder with the SEC during the preceding twelve

(12)months.

(c)The aggregate amount of Securities of an issue purchased, pursuant to this exemption, by the Asset Manager with:

(i)The assets of all Client Plans; and

(ii)the assets, calculated on a *pro-rata* basis, of all Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds managed by the Asset Manager; and

(iii)the assets of plans to which the Asset Manager renders investment advice within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) does not exceed:

(1)10 percent (10%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are equity securities;

(2)35 percent (35%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or

(3)25 percent (25%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in the fifth or sixth highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the sixth highest rating category; and

(4)The assets of any single Client Plan (and the assets of any Client Plans and any In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds) may not be used to purchase any Securities being offered, if such Securities are debt securities rated lower than the sixth highest rating category by any of the Rating Organizations;

(5)Notwithstanding the percentage of Securities of an issue permitted to be acquired, as set forth in Section II(c)(1), (2), and (3), above, of this exemption, the amount of Securities in any issue (whether equity or debt securities) purchased, pursuant to this exemption, by the Asset Manager on behalf of any single Client Plan, either individually or through investment, calculated on a *pro-rata* basis, in a Pooled Fund may not exceed three percent (3%) of the total amount of such Securities being offered in such issue, and;

(6)If purchased in an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the total amount of the Securities being offered for purposes of determining the percentages, described, above, in Section II(c)(1)-(3) and (5), is the total of:

(i)The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities sold by underwriters or members of the selling syndicate to “qualified institutional buyers” (QIBs), as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)); plus

(ii)The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities in any concurrent public offering.

(d)The aggregate amount to be paid by any single Client Plan in purchasing any Securities which are the subject of this exemption, including any amounts paid by any Client Plan or In-House Plan in purchasing such Securities through a Pooled Fund, calculated on a *pro-rata* basis, does not exceed three percent (3%) of the fair market value of the net assets of such Client Plan or In-House Plan, as of the last day of the most recent fiscal quarter of such Client Plan or In-House Plan prior to such transaction.

(e)The covered transactions are not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity.

(f)No Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer receives, either directly, indirectly, or through designation, any selling concession, or other compensation or consideration that is based upon the amount of Securities purchased by any single Client Plan, or that is based on the amount of Securities purchased by Client Plans or In-House Plans through Pooled Funds, pursuant to this exemption. In this regard, a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer may not receive, either directly or indirectly, any compensation or consideration that is attributable to the fixed designations generated by purchases of the Securities by the Asset Manager on behalf of any single Client Plan or any Client Plan or In-House Plan in Pooled Funds. (g)(1) The amount a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer receives in management, underwriting, or other compensation or consideration is not increased through an agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purpose of compensating such Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer for foregoing any selling concessions for those Securities sold pursuant to this exemption. Except as described above, nothing in this Section II(g)(1) shall be construed as precluding a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer from receiving management fees for serving as manager of an underwriting or selling syndicate, underwriting fees for assuming the responsibilities of an underwriter in the underwriting or selling syndicate, or other compensation or consideration that is not based upon the amount of Securities purchased by the Asset Manager on behalf of any single Client Plan, or on behalf of any Client Plan or In-House Plan participating in Pooled Funds, pursuant to this exemption; and

(2)Each Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer shall provide to the Asset Manager a written certification, signed by an officer of such Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, stating the amount that each such Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer received in compensation or consideration during the past quarter, in connection with any offerings covered by this exemption, was not adjusted in a manner inconsistent with Section II(e), (f), or

(g)of this exemption.

(h)The covered transactions are performed under a written authorization executed in advance by an independent fiduciary of each single Client Plan (the Independent Fiduciary), as defined, below, in Section III(j).

(i)Prior to the execution by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan of the written authorization described, above, in Section II(h), the following information and materials (which may be provided electronically) must be provided by the Asset Manager to such Independent Fiduciary:

(1)A copy of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) and a copy of the final exemption (the Grant) as published in the **Federal Register** , provided that the Notice and the Grant are supplied simultaneously; and

(2)Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that such Independent Fiduciary requests the Asset Manager to provide.

(j)Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan permitting the Asset Manager to engage in the covered transactions on behalf of such single Client Plan, the Asset Manager will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary requests the Asset Manager to provide. (k)(1) In the case of an existing employee benefit plan investor (or existing In-House Plan investor, as the case may be) in a Pooled Fund, such Pooled Fund may not engage in any covered transactions pursuant to this exemption, unless the Asset Manager provides the written information, as described, below, and within the time period described, below, in this Section II(k)(2), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such plan participating in such Pooled Fund (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan participating in such Pooled Fund).

(2)The following information and materials, (which may be provided electronically) shall be provided by the Asset Manager not less than 45 days prior to such Asset Manager engaging in the covered transactions on behalf of a Pooled Fund, pursuant to this exemption; and provided further that the information described, below, in this Section II(k)(2)(i) and

(iii)is supplied simultaneously:

(i)A notice of the intent of such Pooled Fund to purchase Securities pursuant to this exemption, a copy of this Notice, and a copy of the Grant, as published in the **Federal Register** ;

(ii)Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund requests the Asset Manager to provide; and

(iii)A termination form expressly providing an election for the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund to terminate such plan's (or In-House Plan's) investment in such Pooled Fund without penalty to such plan (or In-House Plan). Such form shall include instructions specifying how to use the form. Specifically, the instructions will explain that such plan (or such In-House Plan) has an opportunity to withdraw its assets from a Pooled Fund for a period of no more than 30 days after such plan's (or such In-House Plan's) receipt of the initial notice of intent, described, above, in Section II(k)(2)(i), and that the failure of the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or fiduciary of such In-House Plan) to return the termination form to the Asset Manager in the case of a plan (or In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund by the specified date shall be deemed to be an approval by such plan (or such In-House Plan) of its participation in the covered transactions as an investor in such Pooled Fund. Further, the instructions will identify the Asset Manager and the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer and will provide the address of the Asset Manager. The instructions will state that this exemption may be unavailable, unless the fiduciary of each plan participating in the covered transactions as an investor in a Pooled Fund is, in fact, independent of the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entities. The instructions will also state that the fiduciary of each such plan must advise the Asset Manager, in writing, if it is not an “Independent Fiduciary,” as that term is defined, below, in Section III(j). For purposes of this Section II(k), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption for each plan be independent of the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entities shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan. (l)(1) In the case of each plan (and in the case of each In-House Plan) whose assets are proposed to be invested in a Pooled Fund after such Pooled Fund has satisfied the conditions set forth in this exemption to engage in the covered transactions, the investment by such plan (or by such In-House Plan) in the Pooled Fund is subject to the prior written authorization of an Independent Fiduciary representing such plan (or the prior written authorization by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be), following the receipt by such Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) of the written information described, above, in Section II(k)(2)(i) and (ii); provided that the Notice and the Grant, described, above, in Section II(k)(2)(i) are provided simultaneously.

(2)For purposes of this Section II(l), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption for each plan proposing to invest in a Pooled Fund be independent of the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entities shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan.

(m)Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or by a fiduciary of an In-House Plan) to invest in a Pooled Fund that engages in the covered transactions, the Asset Manager will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) requests the Asset Manager to provide.

(n)At least once every three months, and not later than 45 days following the period to which such information relates, the Asset Manager shall furnish:

(1)In the case of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions, the information described, below, in this Section II(n)(3)-(7), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such single Client Plan.

(2)In the case of each Pooled Fund in which a Client Plan (or in which an In-House Plan) invests, the information described, below, in this Section II(n)(3)-(6) and (8), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan) invested in such Pooled Fund.

(3)A quarterly report (the Quarterly Report) (which may be provided electronically) which discloses all the Securities purchased pursuant to this exemption during the period to which such report relates on behalf of the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which such report relates, and which discloses the terms of each of the transactions described in such report, including:

(i)The type of Securities (including the rating of any Securities which are debt securities) involved in each transaction;

(ii)The price at which the Securities were purchased in each transaction;

(iii)The first day on which any sale was made during the offering of the Securities;

(iv)The size of the issue of the Securities involved in each transaction;

(v)The number of Securities purchased by the Asset Manager for the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which the transaction relates;

(vi)The identity of the underwriter from whom the Securities were purchased for each transaction;

(vii)The underwriting spread in each transaction ( *i.e.* , the difference, between the price at which the underwriter purchases the securities from the issuer and the price at which the securities are sold to the public);

(viii)The price at which any of the Securities purchased during the period to which such report relates were sold; and

(ix)The market value at the end of the period to which such report relates of the Securities purchased during such period and not sold;

(4)The Quarterly Report contains:

(i)A representation that the Asset Manager has received a written certification signed by an officer of each Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, as described, above, in Section II(g)(2), affirming that, as to each AUT covered by this exemption during the past quarter, such Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer acted in compliance with Section II(e), (f), and

(g)of this exemption, and

(ii)A representation that copies of such certifications will be provided upon request;

(5)A disclosure in the Quarterly Report that states that any other reasonably available information regarding a covered transaction that an Independent Fiduciary (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) requests will be provided, including, but not limited to:

(i)The date on which the Securities were purchased on behalf of the Client Plan (or the In-House Plan) to which the disclosure relates (including Securities purchased by Pooled Funds in which such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan) invests;

(ii)The percentage of the offering purchased on behalf of all Client Plans (and the *pro-rata* percentage purchased on behalf of Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds); and

(iii)The identity of all members of the underwriting syndicate;

(6)The Quarterly Report discloses any instance during the past quarter where the Asset Manager was precluded for any period of time from selling Securities purchased under this exemption in that quarter because of its relationship to a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer and the reason for this restriction;

(7)Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions that the authorization to engage in such covered transactions may be terminated, without penalty to such single Client Plan, within five

(5)days after the date that the Independent Fiduciary of such single Client Plan informs the person identified in such notification that the authorization to engage in the covered transactions is terminated; and

(8)Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each In-House Plan) that engages in the covered transactions through a Pooled Fund that the investment in such Pooled Fund may be terminated, without penalty to such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan), within such time as may be necessary to effect the withdrawal in an orderly manner that is equitable to all withdrawing plans and to the non-withdrawing plans, after the date that that the Independent Fiduciary of such Client Plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) informs the person identified in such notification that the investment in such Pooled Fund is terminated.

(o)For purposes of engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million (the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement). For purposes of engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, 5 each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) shall have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be) (the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement). 5 SEC Rule 10f-3(a)(4), 17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4), states that the term “Eligible Rule 144A Offering” means an offering of securities that meets the following conditions:

(i)The securities are offered or sold in transactions exempt from registration under section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77d(d)], rule 144A there under [§ 230.144A of this chapter], or rules 501-508 there under [§§ 230.501-230-508 of this chapter];

(ii)The securities are sold to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe to include qualified institutional buyers, as defined in § 230.144A(a)(1) of this chapter; and

(iii)The seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe that the securities are eligible for resale to other qualified institutional buyers pursuant to § 230.144A of this chapter. For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met, if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which has total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or In-House Plan, as the case may be), the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be), and the Pooled Fund itself qualifies as a QIB, as determined pursuant to SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(F)). For purposes of the net asset requirements described, above, in this Section II(o), where a group of Client Plans is maintained by a single employer or controlled group of employers, as defined in section 407(d)(7) of the Act, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement (or in the case of an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement) may be met by aggregating the assets of such Client Plans, if the assets of such Client Plans are pooled for investment purposes in a single master trust.

(p)No more than 20 percent of the assets of a Pooled Fund, at the time of a covered transaction, are comprised of assets of In-House Plans for which the Asset Manager or a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity exercises investment discretion.

(q)The Asset Manager and the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, as applicable, maintain, or cause to be maintained, for a period of six

(6)years from the date of any covered transaction such records as are necessary to enable the persons, described, below, in Section II(r), to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that—

(1)No party in interest with respect to a plan which engages in the covered transactions, other than the Asset Manager, and the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, as applicable, shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 502(i) of the Act or the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and

(b)of the Code, if such records are not maintained, or not available for examination, as required, below, by Section II(r); and

(2)A prohibited transaction shall not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Asset Manager, or the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, as applicable, such records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period. (r)(1) Except as provided, below, in Section II(r)(2), and notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and

(b)of section 504 of the Act, the records referred to, above, in Section II(q) are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by—

(i)Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department of Labor (the Department), the Internal Revenue Service, or the SEC; or

(ii)Any fiduciary of any plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary; or

(iii)Any employer of participants and beneficiaries and any employee organization whose members are covered by a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any authorized employee or representative of these entities; or

(iv)Any participant or beneficiary of a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary;

(2)None of the persons described, above, in Section II(r)(1)(ii)-(iv) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of the Asset Manager, or the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer, or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential; and

(3)Should the Asset Manager, or the Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer refuse to disclose information on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Section II(r)(2), above, the Asset Manager shall, by the close of the thirtieth

(30th)day following the request, provide a written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and that the Department may request such information. Section III—Definitions

(a)The term, “the Applicants,” means BlackRock Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc.

(b)The term, “Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer,” means any broker-dealer that is a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity that meets the requirements of this exemption. Such Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Broker-Dealer may participate in an underwriting or selling syndicate as a manager or member. The term, “manager,” means any member of an underwriting or selling syndicate who, either alone or together with other members of the syndicate, is authorized to act on behalf of the members of the syndicate in connection with the sale and distribution of the Securities, as defined, below, in Section III(k), being offered or who receives compensation from the members of the syndicate for its services as a manager of the syndicate.

(c)The term, “Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity(s)” includes all entities listed in this Section III(c)(i) and (ii):

(i)Merrill Lynch and any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Merrill Lynch, and

(ii)BlackRock and any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, BlackRock. For purposes of this exemption, the definition of a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity shall include any entity that satisfies such definition in the future.

(d)The term, “BlackRock Related Entity” or “BlackRock Related Entities,” means BlackRock and any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with BlackRock.

(e)The term, “Merrill Lynch Related Entity” or “Merrill Lynch Related Entities,” means Merrill Lynch and any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Merrill Lynch.

(f)The term, “Asset Manager,” means a BlackRock Related Entity, as defined, above, in Section III(d). For purposes of this exemption, the Asset Manager must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment advisor, have total client assets under management in excess of $5 billion, have shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million, and must satisfy the definition of a “qualified professional asset manager” (QPAM), as that term is defined in Part V(a) of PTE 84-14, 49 Fed. Reg. 9494 (Mar. 13, 1984), as amended, 70 Fed. Reg. 49305 (Aug. 23, 2005). Accordingly, the Asset Manager must have total client asset under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of it most recent fiscal year, and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million in addition to satisfying the requirements for a QPAM under Part V(a) of PTE 84-14.

(g)The term, “control,” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

(h)The term, “Client Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan or employee benefit plans that are subject to the Act and/or the Code, and for which plan(s) an Asset Manager exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management or disposition of some or all of the assets of such plan(s), but excludes In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(o).

(i)The term, “Pooled Fund(s),” means a common or collective trust fund(s) or a pooled investment fund(s):

(i)In which employee benefit plan(s) subject to the Act and/or Code invest,

(ii)which is maintained by an Asset Manager, and

(iii)for which such Asset Manager exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting the management or disposition of the assets of such fund(s). (j)(1) The term, “Independent Fiduciary,” means a fiduciary of a plan who is unrelated to, and independent of any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity. For purposes of this exemption, a fiduciary of a plan will be deemed to be unrelated to, and independent of any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity, if such fiduciary represents that neither such fiduciary, nor any individual responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity, and represents that such fiduciary shall advise the Asset Manager within a reasonable period of time after any change in such facts occur.

(2)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section III(j), a fiduciary of a plan is not independent:

(i)If such fiduciary, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity;

(ii)If such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration from any Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity for his or her own personal account in connection with any transaction described in this exemption;

(iii)If any officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the Asset Manager responsible for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the sponsor of a plan or of the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I. However, if such individual is a director of the sponsor of a plan or of the responsible fiduciary, and if he or she abstains from participation in:

(A)The choice of such plan's investment manager/adviser; and

(B)the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for transactions described, above, in Section I, then Section III(j)(2)(iii) shall not apply.

(3)The term, “officer,” means a president, any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function (such as sales, administration, or finance), or any other officer who performs a policy-making function for a Merrill Lynch/BlackRock Related Entity.

(k)The term, “Securities,” shall have the same meaning as defined in section 2(36) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(36)(1996)). For purposes of this exemption, mortgage-backed or other asset-backed securities rated by one of the Rating Organizations, as defined, below, in Section III(n), will be treated as debt securities.

(l)The term, “Eligible Rule 144A Offering,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3(a)(4) (17 CFR 270. 10f-3(a)(4)) under the 1940 Act.

(m)The term, “qualified institutional buyer,” or the term, “QIB,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)) under the 1933 Act.

(n)The term, “Rating Organizations,” means Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Fitch Ratings Inc., Dominion Bond Ratings Service Limited, and Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto.

(o)The term, “In-House Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan(s) that is subject to the Act and/or the Code, and that is sponsored by:

(i)A Merrill Lynch Related Entity, as defined, above, in Section III(e), or

(ii)a BlackRock Related Entity, as defined, above, in Section III(d), for their respective employees. The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application for exemption are true and complete and accurately describe all material terms of the transactions. In the case of continuing transactions, if any of the material facts or representations described in the applications change, the exemption will cease to apply as of the date of such change. In the event of any such change, an application for a new exemption must be made to the Department. *Effective Date:* This exemption will be effective as of the date the Grant is published in the **Federal Register** . Written Comments In the Notice, the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and requests for a hearing on the proposed exemption within forty-five

(45)days of the date of the publication of the Notice in the **Federal Register** on September 10, 2007. All comments and requests for a hearing were due by October 10, 2007. During the comment period, the Department received no comments or requests for a hearing. However, in order to clarify the meaning of the term, “Asset Manager,” the Department has determined to delete the last sentence in the definition of the term, “Asset Manager,” as set forth in Section III(f) of the Notice, at 72 FR 51680, column 1, lines 11-20, and to substitute the following sentence, “Accordingly, the Asset Manager must have total client asset under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year, and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million in addition to satisfying the requirements for a QPAM under Part V(a) of PTE 84-14.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelena C. Le Blanc of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number). Gastroenterology and Oncology Associates, P.A. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan), Located in St. Petersburg, FL [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-21; Exemption Application No. D-11441] Exemption The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through

(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed sale of certain shares of common stock (the Stock) issued by Alden Enterprises, Inc., an unrelated party, by the individually directed account in the Plan (the Account) of Jayaprakash K. Kamath, M.D. (Dr. Kamath), to Geetha J. Kamath, M.D., (Mrs. Kamath), Dr. Kamath's spouse and a party in interest with respect to the Plan. This exemption is subject to the following conditions:

(a)The sale of the Stock by the Account to Mrs. Kamath is a one-time transaction for cash.

(b)The Stock is sold to Mrs. Kamath for a price that reflects the fair market value of the Stock, as determined by a qualified, independent appraiser (the Appraiser).

(c)The closing of the sale (the Closing Date) occurs at a time that is mutually agreed upon by Mrs. Kamath and the Plan trustees (the Trustees) within 30 days of the Department's approval of the final exemption.

(d)As of the Closing Date, the Appraiser reviews the assumptions previously made in determining the appraised value of the Stock to see whether there has been a 3% or more increase (Material Increase) in the fair market value of the Stock between December 31, 2006 (the Appraisal Date) and the Closing Date.

(e)If the Appraiser determines that there has been no Material Increase in the fair market value of the Stock on the Closing Date, the Appraiser issues a letter to the parties to the sale to such effect and the sale price of the Stock remains at the value determined on the Appraisal Date.

(f)If the Appraiser determines that there has been a Material Increase in the fair market value of the Stock, he advises the parties to the transaction, in writing, as to the increased value as of the Closing Date. Then, the sale price for the Stock is revised to reflect the increased value and the amount of such increase is paid to the Trustees by Mrs. Kamath following the receipt of the updated appraisal report from the Appraiser setting forth the increased value of the Stock.

(g)The sale proceeds from the transaction are credited to Dr. Kamath's Account simultaneously with the transfer of the Stock's title to Mrs. Kamath.

(h)The Account is not responsible for paying any fees, commissions, or other costs or expenses associated with the sale of the Stock.

(i)The terms and conditions of the Stock sale remain at least as favorable to the Account as the terms and conditions obtainable under similar circumstances negotiated at arm's length with an unrelated party. Written Comments In the notice of proposed exemption, the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and requests for a hearing with respect to the proposed exemption within

(30)thirty days of the publication of the notice of pendency in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2007. All comments and requests for a hearing were due by November 26, 2007. During the comment period, the Department received no comments or hearing requests. However, the Department has noted two errors in the proposed exemption that require either revision or clarification. In this regard, the reference to the Exemption Application Number appearing on pages 60889 and 60890 of the proposal has been modified in the grant notice to read “D-11441” instead of “D-11141.” In addition, on page 60891 of the proposal, in the paragraph captioned “Notice to Interested Persons,” the Department wishes to clarify that the phrase “whose Account will be affected by the proposed transaction,” should have been inserted after that portion of the sentence which states “Because Dr. Kamath is the only participant in the Plan, * * *” Accordingly, the Department has considered the entire record and has determined to grant the exemption. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on October 26, 2007 at 72 FR 60889. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department, telephone

(202)693-8556. (This is not a toll-free number.) General Information The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1)The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2)This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

(3)The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of December, 2007. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-24313 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0082] Meeting Notice, Work Group Meetings and Appointment of Committee Members for the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Meeting notice, work group meetings and appointment of committee members for the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces ACCSH membership, including representation categories and terms; work group meetings January 23, 2008; and a full committee meeting on January 24-25, 2008. ACCSH is meeting to address construction safety and health issues. DATES: *ACCSH work groups will meet* Wednesday, January 23, 2008. *ACCSH will meet* Thursday and Friday, January 24-25, 2008. *Submit written materials for ACCSH or make requests to speak to ACCSH* on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: *ACCSH Meeting Locations:* ACCSH and ACCSH Work Groups will meet in Room N3437-B/C/D of the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. *Submission of comments and requests to speak:* Comments and requests to speak, must be submitted to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999; e-mail *Chatmon.veneta@dol.gov* . OSHA requests that interested parties submit 20 copies of their comments, which OSHA will provide to ACCSH members and put into the official record of the meeting. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name, OSHA and the docket number for this **Federal Register** notice (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0082). Submissions in response to this **Federal Register** notice, including personal information, will be posted without change at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. For additional information on submitting comments and requests to speak, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. *Docket:* To read or download submissions or the official record of this ACCSH meeting, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some documents (e.g., copyrighted materials) are not publicly available to read or download through *http://www.regulations.gov* . The official record and all submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (TTY number

(877)889-5627). The Department of Labor's and the OSHA Docket Office's normal business hours are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information about ACCSH and ACCSH meetings:* Mr. Michael Buchet, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)-693-2020; e-mail *Buchet.michael@dol.gov* . *For information about submitting comments or requests to speak, and for special accommodations for the meeting:* Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999; e-mail *Chatmon.veneta@dol.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *ACCSH Meeting:* ACCSH will meet January 24-25, 2008. The proposed agenda for this meeting includes: • *Welcoming and Remarks* —OSHA, Office of the Assistant Secretary • *Remarks* —OSHA, Directorate of Construction. • *Standards Update* —OSHA, Directorates of Construction. • *Standards Update* —OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance. • Committee governance, work group assignments and reports. • OSHA's role in the National Response Plan—Overview. • OSHA's Structural Collapse Response. • Minnesota's I-35W Highway Bridge Collapse and OSHA's Role. • Construction Cooperative Programs Update. • Post-Frame Construction presentation—National Frame Builders Association. • Concrete Masonry Unit Construction Safety presentation—Stonesmith Patented Systems, Inc. • Public Comment. *Requests to Present or Speak to ACCSH:* Interested parties may request to make oral presentations to ACCSH by notifying Ms. Veneta Chatmon at the address above on or before January 14, 2008. Requests must state the amount of time desired, the interests represented by the presenters (e.g., businesses, organizations, themselves, affiliations, etc., if any), and briefly outline the presentation. Alternately, at the Committee meeting, attendees may request to address ACCSH by signing the public comment request sheet and listing the interests they represent (e.g., businesses, organizations, themselves, affiliations, etc., if any) and the topics to be addressed. All requests to present to or address the committee may be granted at the ACCSH Chair's discretion and as time permits. Time permitting OSHA will provide speaker submissions to ACCSH members. OSHA will include all submissions in the record of the meeting. *Access to meeting record:* For access to the official record of ACCSH committee meetings and copies of this **Federal Register** notice, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and find Docket No. OSHA-2007-0082. Although all documents in the record will be listed in Docket No. OSHA-2007-0082 at *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some documents (e.g., copyrighted materials) are not publicly available to read or download. The official record, including these materials, is available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (TTY number

(877)899-5627). Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice, as well as information about ACCSH work groups and other relevant documents, are available on OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov* . *ACCSH Work Group Meetings:* The following ACCSH Work Groups will meet on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 in Room N 3437 B/C/D of the Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210: • The Residential Fall Protection Work Group will meet from 9 to 11:30 a.m.; • The Diversity and Multilingual Work Group will meet from 12:30 to 3 p.m. *Building Access, Department of Labor Security:* Members of the public attending the ACCSH or ACCSH Work Group meetings in the Department of Labor's Frances Perkins Building will be required to enter and exit through Building Security at the 3rd and C Streets, NW., “Visitors' Entrance.” Attendees must present valid government-issued photo identification and sign the log to enter the building. They should proceed to the North elevator banks and go to the third floor. Rooms N3437-B/C/D are behind the elevator bank. Attendees should allow extra time for the security procedures and reaching the meeting rooms. *Special Accommodations:* Individuals needing special accommodations for ACCSH or ACCSH Work Group meetings should contact Ms. Chatmon by January 14, 2008. *ACCSH Member Appointments and Continuing Membership:* *New Appointments:* *Representatives of Employer Viewpoints:* Thomas R. Shanahan, Assistant Executive Director, National Association of Roofing Contractors, Term Expires November 30, 2009. Daniel D. Zarletti, Vice President/Chief Risk Officer, Kenny Construction Company, Term Expires November 30, 2009. *Representative of the Public Interests:* Ms. Elizabeth Arioto, Elizabeth Arioto Safety and Health Consulting Services, Term Expires November 30, 2009. *Reappointment:* *Representatives of Employee Viewpoints:* Thomas L. Kavicky, Safety Director/Assistant to the President, Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters, Term Expires November 30, 2009. Frank L. Migliaccio, Jr., Executive Director, Safety and Health, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Term Expires November 30, 2009. *Representatives of State Safety and Health Agencies:* Kevin D. Beauregard, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Director, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, North Carolina Department of Labor, Term Expires November 30, 2009. Steven D. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator, Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Term Expires November 30, 2009. *Continuing ACCSH Members:* *Representatives of Employee Viewpoints: * Emmett M. Russell, Director—Department of Safety and Health, International Union of Operating Engineers, Term Expires July 3, 2008. Robert Krul, Director of Safety & Health, United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Term Expires July 3, 2008. David Dale Haggerty, MOST Representative—Safety, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Term Expires July 3, 2008. *Representatives of Employer Viewpoints:* Daniel J. Murphy, Vice President of Construction Services, Zurich North America, Term Expires July 3, 2008. Linwood O. Smith, Vice President of Risk Management and Safety, T.A. Loving Company, Term Expires July 3, 2008. Michael J. Thibodeaux, Consultant, National Association of Home Builders, Term Expires July 3, 2008. *Representative of the Public Interests:* Thomas A. Broderick, Executive Director, Construction Safety Council and Chicagoland Construction Safety Council, Term Expires July 3, 2008. *Designee of the Secretary of Health and Human Services:* Matt Gillen, Senior Scientist and Construction Program Coordinator, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Term Expiration, Indefinite. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by section 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656), section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701 *et seq.* ), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of December, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-24256 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-8943-MLA; ASLBP No. 07-859-03-MLA-BD01] Crow Butte Resources, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Crow Butte Resources, Inc., In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facility, Crawford, Nebraska, License Amendment for the North Trend Expansion Area) This Board is being established in response to requests for hearing that were filed pursuant to a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing posted on NRC's Public Web site on September 13, 2007 regarding a Request for License Amendment submitted by Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (“CBR”) on May 30, 2007 that would allow CBR to develop a satellite facility near its existing in-situ leach uranium recovery facility in Crawford, Nebraska. This proceeding concerns the requests for hearing and petitions for intervention submitted by:

(1)Debra L. White Plume;

(2)Debra L. White Plume, Director, Owe Aku, Bring Back the Way;

(3)Western Nebraska Resources Council;

(4)Thomas Kanatakeniate Cook;

(5)Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Corporation;

(6)Chadron Native American Center, Inc.; and

(7)High Plains Community Development Corporation. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Ann Marshall Young, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Frederick W. Oliver, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-24387 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-317] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50 for Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-53, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (Calvert Cliffs 1), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to reinsert up to four lead fuel assemblies (LFAs), two of which contain cladding with advanced zirconium-based alloys manufactured by Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse), and two of which contain cladding with M5 TM alloy manufactured by AREVA, into the Unit 1 core during Cycle 19. The four LFAs were previously inserted into the Unit 2 core in April of 2003. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 23, 2007. The Need for the Proposed Action 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K make no provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since the material specifications of the advanced zirconium-based and M5 TM alloys differ from the specification for Zircaloy or ZIRLO, a plant-specific exemption is required to support the use of the four LFAs for Calvert Cliffs 1. If the exemption were not approved, the licensee would not gain practical experience in order to assess performance of the cladding material at higher burnups. The proposed action is needed to support future fuel load capabilities by allowing the use of higher enriched fuel, which can provide the flexibility of extending fuel irradiation. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K and will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. Previously, the Westinghouse safety evaluation (WCAP-15874-NP, Revision 0, “Safety Analysis Report for Use of Improved Zirconium-based Cladding Materials in Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Batch T Lead Fuel Assemblies,” dated April 2002) and approved Framatome ANP topical report (BAW-10227P-A, “Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural Material

(M5)in PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor] Reactor Fuel,” Framatome Cogema Fuels, February 2000) demonstrated that the predicted chemical, mechanical, and material performance of the advanced zirconium and M5 TM cladding are acceptable under all anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents. The LFAs will be placed in core locations to permit higher burnups to be achieved for these LFAs. In the event that cladding failures occur in the LFAs, the environmental impact would be minimal and is bounded by the previous environmental assessments. The exemption, which would be effective during the Unit 1 Cycle 19 fuel cycle, would allow the fuel to be irradiated to levels above 60 gigawatt days per metric ton (GWd/MTU), but not to exceed 70 GWd/MTU. The safety considerations associated with reactor operation with extended irradiation have been evaluated by the NRC staff. The NRC staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety, and would have no adverse effect on the probability of any accident. For accidents in which the core remains intact, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected by the extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of an accident will not be affected. For accidents that involve damage or melting of the fuel in the reactor core, the increased burnup may slightly change the mix of fission products that could be released in the event of a serious accident, but because the radionuclides contributing most to the dose are short-lived, increased burnup would not have an effect on the consequences of a serious accident beyond those accident scenarios previously evaluated. Increases in projected consequences of postulated accidents associated with fuel burnup up to 70 GWd/MTU are not considered significant, and remain well below regulatory limits. Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid, or solid radiological effluents to unrestricted areas are kept “as low as reasonably achievable.” Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological effluents released into the environment. No significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure will occur. The impact to workers is expected to be reduced with higher irradiation due to the need for less frequent outages for fuel changes and less frequent fuel shipments to and from reactor sites. The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5 years after discharge from the reactor. A report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

(PNNL)for the NRC (NUREG/CR-6703, “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel burnup Above 60 Gwd/MTU,” January 2001), concluded that doses associated with incident-free transportation of spent fuel with burnup to 75 GWd/MTU are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, for all regions of the country if dose rates from the shipping casks are maintained within regulatory limits. Increased fuel burnup will decrease the annual discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, which will postpone the need to remove spent fuel from the pool. With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts of reactor operation with extended irradiation, the proposed changes involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. Therefore, the proposed action does not result in any significant changes to land use or water use, or result in any significant changes to the quality or quantity of effluents. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to endangered or threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened species are expected. The proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historical or archaeological sites. The proposed action will not change the method of generating electricity or the method of handling any influents from the environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the amendments. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratories for the NRC, which is entitled, “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU” (NUREG/CR-6703, PNL-13257, January 2001). The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, dated April 1973, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1, Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on November 20, 2007, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. R. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 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 NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 letters dated February 23, 2007, available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (Accession Number ML070580103 and ML070580107). 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 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 send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-24399 Filed 12-14-07; 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 Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level; Correction AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects an Environmental Assessment appearing in the **Federal Register** on December 5, 2007 (72 FR 68598). This action is necessary to correctly declare the Environmental Assessment as a final document (in lieu of a draft) with no action for noticing for public comment. The corrected Environmental Assessment is provided as follows: The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as part of 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 final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being published in the **Federal Register** . The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the **Federal Register** on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46670). One set of comments were received on the draft Environmental Assessment from PPL Susquehanna, LLC by letter dated September 19, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML072820283). These comments were clarifications and editorial corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on these comments, the NRC staff revised the appropriate sections of the final Environmental Assessment. 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 final 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* ), 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 amount annual 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 (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 7th day of December 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_idin=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, D.C. (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, D.C. (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, D.C. (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. E7-24283 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-151] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the University of Illinois Nuclear Research Laboratory Triga Research Reactor Champaign-Urbana in the City of Urbana, IL AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McLaughlin, Project Manager, Materials Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC., 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-5869; fax number:

(301)415-5369; e-mail: *tgm@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) proposes to issue a license amendment to Facility Operating License R-115 that would allow decommissioning of the University of Illinois' (University's or licensee's) Nuclear Research Laboratory

(NRL)Advanced Teaching Research Isotope General Atomic (TRIGA) Mark II nuclear research reactor located on the campus of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana in the city of Urbana, Illinois. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action By letters dated March 28, 2006 (See ADAMS ML060900623), and August 20, 2007 (See ADAMS ML072550089), the licensee submitted a Decommissioning Plan

(DP)in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(b)(1), in order to dismantle the TRIGA Reactor, to dispose of its component parts and radioactive material, and to decontaminate the facilities in accordance with the proposed DP to meet the Commission's unrestricted release criteria. After the Commission verifies that the release criteria have been met, Facility Operating License No. R-115 will be terminated. The licensee submitted an Environmental Report dated December 2005, that addresses the estimated environmental impacts resulting from decommissioning the TRIGA Reactor. The University of Illinois ceased operations of the NRL TRIGA reactor on August 6, 1998, and it was placed in a Safe Storage (SAFSTOR) condition. On August 18, 2004, the reactor fuel was removed and shipped to the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory. A “Notice and Solicitation of Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning Proposed Action to Decommission the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Nuclear Reactor Laboratory” was published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43528), and in the Champaign County, Illinois daily newspaper, *The News-Gazette,* on August 3, 2006. No comments were received. Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary because of the University of Illinois' decision to permanently cease operations at the NRL TRIGA Reactor. As specified in 10 CFR 50.82, any licensee may permanently cease operation and apply to the NRC for license termination and authorization to decommission the affected facility. Further, 10 CFR 51.53(d) provides that each applicant for a license amendment to authorize decommissioning of a production or utilization facility shall submit with its application an environmental report that reflects any new information or significant environmental change associated with the proposed decommissioning activities. The University of Illinois is planning unrestricted use for the area that would be released. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action The decommissioning plan states that all decontamination will be performed by trained personnel in accordance with the requirements of the radiation protection program, and will be overseen by a radiation safety officer with multiple years of experience in decommissioning health physics practices. All reactor and pool components will be removed from the facility as low-level radioactive waste and managed in accordance with NRC requirements. The licensee estimates the total occupational radiation exposure for the decommissioning process to be about 8.5 person-rem. The licensee proposes controls, as mentioned above and in the DP, to minimize the occupational exposure to individual workers, thereby ensuring that the exposures are within the 10 CFR Part 20 limits. In addition, by keeping the public at a safe distance, using access control, and by using the approved DP and Illinois's radiation protection program to control effluent releases, the licensee expects the radiation exposure to the general public to be negligible. The licensees' conclusion is consistent with the estimate given for the “reference research reactor” in NUREG-0586, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities, August 1988.” Occupational and public exposure may result from offsite disposal of the low-level residual radioactive material from the NRL, which includes the TRIGA Reactor. In the DP, the licensee stated that the handling, storage, and shipment of this radioactive material will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2006, “Transfer for Disposal and Manifest,” and 49 CFR Parts 100-177, “Transportation of Hazardous Materials.” The waste that needs to be processed prior to disposal will be shipped by the licensee to a licensed waste processor. The DP states that waste for disposal will be shipped to an acceptable waste disposal site in accordance with applicable NRC and Department of Transportation

(DOT)regulations regarding waste packaging, labeling, and placarding. These shipments will be mixed waste containing activated and/or contaminated lead. It is expected that EnergySolutions of Clive, Utah, will receive the Class A waste. Based on the site characterization, Class B and C low-level radioactive waste are not expected at the NRL facility. NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1402, provide radiological criteria for release of a site for unrestricted use. Release criteria for unrestricted use is a maximum Total Effective Dose Equivalent

(TEDE)of 25 mrem per year from residual radioactivity above background and doses must be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The results of the final status survey will be used to demonstrate that the predicted dose to a member of the public from any residual radioactivity does not exceed the 25 mrem per year dose limit. The NRC will perform inspections and if necessary a confirmatory survey to verify that the decommissioning activities and the final status survey results are acceptable. The DP states that liquid waste that is generated during the decommissioning activities will be filtered and disposed of in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K, “Waste Disposal.” Containment measures will be taken as necessary to minimize the spread of contamination. Engineered features such as enclosures and temporary barriers with high-efficiency particulate air filters will be used to control the spread of airborne radioactive material. Airborne releases of radioactive materials are not expected. The licensee analyzed accidents applicable to decommissioning activities. The dose consequence from transportation accidents has the potential for a moderate dose of between 1 and 25 mrem for the public, which is within the dose limits for members of the public in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public.” Based on the review of the specific proposed activities associated with the dismantling and decontamination of the NRL, which includes the TRIGA Reactor, the staff has determined that the proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there will be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure above those during the operation of the facility. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. The predominant hazardous material in the NRL site is elemental lead and proper precautions will be taken to reduce the exposure to lead dust. Asbestos is also present in NRL construction materials (e.g. floor tiles, roofing materials) and will be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Decommissioning activities will not affect non-radiological facility effluents and have no other environmental impact. The licensee states that there are no sensitive or endangered species on the NRL site and will ensure that all construction activities or any related disturbance will not result in the impairment of local waterways. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The three alternatives for disposition of the NRL, which includes the TRIGA Reactor are: Decontamination (DECON), SAFSTOR, and no action. The University of Illinois has proposed the DECON option. DECON is the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of the facilities containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use. SAFSTOR is the alternative in which the nuclear facilities are placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facilities to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. The no-action alternative would leave the facilities in their present configuration without any decommissioning activities required or implemented. The SAFSTOR and no-action alternatives would entail continued surveillance as well as physical security measures to be in place and continued monitoring by licensee personnel. The SAFSTOR and no-action alternatives would also require continued maintenance of the facilities. The radiological impacts of SAFSTOR and no-action would be less than the DECON option because of radioactive decay prior to the start of decommissioning activities. However, these options involve the continued use of resources during the SAFSTOR or no-action period. The University of Illinois has determined that the proposed action (DECON) is the most efficient use of NRL, including the TRIGA Reactor, since it proposes to use the space that will become available for unrestricted uses. These alternatives would have no significant environmental impact. In addition, the regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(b)(4)(i) allow an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decommissioning only when the delay is necessary to protect the public health and safety. The staff finds that delay is not justified since the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives are similar and insignificant. Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Environmental Report dated December 2005, for the University of Illinois NRL TRIGA Reactor. Agencies and Persons Contacted On September 18, 2007, the staff sent a copy of a draft Environmental Assessment

(EA)to the Acting Bureau Chief, Bureau of Environmental Safety, Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), Division of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. This State official's comments were received on October 12, 2007, and incorporated into this EA. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of human health or the environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 letters dated March 28, 2006 (See ADAMS ML060900623), and August 20, 2007 (See ADAMS ML072550089), which are available for public inspection, and can be copied for a fee, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. The NRC maintains an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who have problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Lydia W. Chang, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-24403 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the Subcommittee on ESBWR Design Certification; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR Design Certification will hold a meeting on January 16-17, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed to discuss unclassified safeguards and proprietary information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(3) and (4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Wednesday, January 16, 2008—8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.* *Thursday, January 17, 2008—8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.* The Subcommittee will review and discuss the Safety Evaluation with Open Items for several chapters of the ESBWR Design Certification and make a recommendation to the full Committee. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Charles G. Hammer (telephone 301/415-7363) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: December 10, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-24349 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice Date: Weeks of December 17, 24, 31, 2007; January 7, 14, 21, 2008. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of December 17, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 17, 2007. Week of December 24, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 24, 2007. Week of December 31, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 31, 2007. Week of January 7, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 7, 2008. Week of January 14, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 14, 2008. Week of January 21, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 21, 2008. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,

(301)415-1662. Additional Information: By votes of 3-0 on December 11, 2007, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that

(1)“Affirmation of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, Licensing Board Order (Censure of Sherwood Martinelli) (Dec. 3, 2007)” *and*

(2)“Discussion of Management Issues (Closed—Ex. 2)” be held December 12, 2007, and on less than one week's notice to the public. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html/.* The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *REB3@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: December 12, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-6076 Filed 12-13-07; 11:34 am]

Connectionstraces to 47

Traces to 47 documents

U.S. Code