Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-02-22 · Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior · Notices

Notices. Notice

25,847 words·~117 min read·/register/2008/02/22/08-788

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

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Transfer From Fee to Trust of Parcels Owned by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York in Oneida and Madison Counties, New York AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, with the cooperation of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York (Nation), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Madison County, New York, and Oneida County, New York as cooperating agencies, intends to file a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)for the requested transfer of parcels owned by the Nation to the United States in trust for the Nation, and that the FEIS is now available to the public. The subject lands are located within Oneida and Madison Counties, New York. The FEIS is part of the administrative process that evaluates tribal applications that seek to have the United States take land into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 465 and 25 CFR Part 151. The purpose of the proposed action is to help provide for the Nation's cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth by providing a tribal land base and homeland over which the Nation exercises tribal sovereignty. DATES: The Record of Decision on the proposed action will be issued on or after March 25, 2008. Any comments on the FEIS must arrive by March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail, hand carry or fax written comments to Mr. Franklin Keel, Regional Director, Eastern Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 545 Marriott Drive, Suite 700, Nashville, Tennessee 37214, fax
(615)564-6701. Electronic submission is not available. Copies of the FEIS will be available for viewing at Web site *www.oneidanationtrust.net* and at the following locations during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, except holidays:
(1)Oneida Nation Annex Building, 579A Main Street, Oneida, New York 13421 (business hours: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.); Oneida City Hall, 109 N. Main Street, Downstairs Basement Room, Oneida, New York 13421; and Town of Verona Town Hall, 6600 Germany Road, Back Conference Room, Durhamville, New York 13054. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt G. Chandler,
(615)564-6832. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nation submitted an application to the U.S. Department of the Interior through the BIA, requesting that the Secretary of the Interior take approximately 17,370 acres of land in Madison and Oneida Counties, New York, into trust status for the benefit of the Nation. The subject properties are currently owned by the Nation. The nine alternatives analyzed in the FEIS are as follows:
(A)Proposed Action—Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 Lands (17,370 acres), which is the action proposed by the Nation;
(B)Phased Acquisition of 35,000 Acres, which is based on a prior land claim settlement framework;
(C)Group 1 and Group 2 Lands (9,903 acres);
(D)Group 1 Lands (3,428 acres);
(E)Turning Stone Casino Gaming Floor Tax Lot (225 acres);
(F)Alternative Trust Land Grouping (11,986 acres), which includes all of the Group 1 lands and additional parcels from Groups 2 and 3;
(G)No Action (0 acres);
(H)County Trust Land Alternative (1,026 acres), which includes 590 acres in Madison County and 436 acres in Oneida County that the Counties proposed for acquisition subject to certain conditions; and
(I)Preferred Alternative (13,086 acres), which includes Group 1 lands and some Group 2 and Group 3 lands near the Turning Stone Resort and Casino in Oneida County or near the Nation's 32-acre Territory in Madison County. The alternatives are intended to assist the review of the issues presented, but the Preferred Alternative does not necessarily reflect what the final decision will be, because a complete evaluation of the criteria listed in 25 CFR Part 151 may lead to a final decision that differs from the Preferred Alternative and the other alternatives. Public participation occurred throughout the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76325). Public scoping meetings were held January 10, 2006, in Verona, New York, and January 11, 2006, in Oneida, New York, and a 30-day public comment period was provided, all to obtain public input on issues and content for inclusion in the EIS. The BIA and EPA each published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the **Federal Register** on November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67896; 71 FR 67863). A public hearing on December 14, 2006 in Utica, New York, and a 45-day comment period were provided to receive public comments on the Draft EIS. On January 19, 2007, the BIA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 2544) extending the public comment period on the Draft EIS to February 22, 2007, and announcing a second public hearing, which took place on February 6, 2007, in Verona, New York. The EPA published a notice of the Draft EIS comment period extension in the **Federal Register** on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 546). Additionally, the cooperating agencies for the EIS had a period from August 28 to September 29, 2006, to review and comment on a Pre-publication Draft EIS, pursuant to the EIS schedule appended to the cooperating agency Memorandum of Understanding. Apart from the EIS process, the State and local governments were afforded notice and an opportunity to comment, pursuant to 25 CFR 151.10, on the written land-into-trust application that the Nation submitted to the BIA on April 5, 2005. The BIA issued letter notices on September 20, 2005 to the State and local governments involved. Including extensions well beyond the 30 days required in 25 CFR 151.10, the comment period on the Group 1 and Group 2 lands ran until January 30, 2006. The comment period on the Group 3 lands ran until March 1, 2006. Also, as a courtesy, the BIA held a public informational meeting on the application on March 2, 2006, in Utica, New York. The BIA gave a presentation on the land-into-trust process, including the relationship of the EIS to that process, and answered audience questions at the meeting, but did not solicit public comments. Notice of the meeting was published in local newspapers. The FEIS addresses issues and concerns raised through public participation and contains written responses to letters and oral testimony received during the public comment period on the Draft EIS. Public Comment Availability Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the ADDRESSES section, during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8 and temporarily re-delegated to the Associate Deputy Secretary pursuant to Secretarial Order 3259. Dated: February 11, 2008. James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3247 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AA-6671-G, AA-6671-H, AA-6671-C2; AK 964-1410-HY-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Correction to notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice of the decision approving lands for conveyance to Bay View Incorporated, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, was published in the **Federal Register** on February 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 28). The notice contained an error in the land description. The correct description is as follows: Seward Meridian, Alaska T. 50 S., R. 66 W., Secs. 16, 20, and 21; Secs. 22, 26, and 27. Containing approximately 1,443 acres. T. 50 S., R. 67 W., Secs. 21, 27, and 28; Secs. 34, 35, and 36. Containing approximately 1,615 acres. T. 50 S., R. 68 W., Sec. 23. Containing approximately 1 acre. Aggregating approximately 3,059 acres. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until March 12, 2008, to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov* . Persons who use a telecommunication device
(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Michael Bilancione, Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Land Transfer Adjudication I. [FR Doc. E8-3319 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [UT-920-08-1320-EL, UTU-85867] Notice of Invitation to Participate in Coal Exploration License, Utah AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Invitation to Participate in Coal Exploration License. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and to the regulations adopted as 43 CFR part 3410, all interested qualified parties, as provided in 43 CFR 3472.1, are hereby invited to participate with Ark Land Company on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of coal deposits in certain Federal coal deposits owned by the United States of America in the following-described lands in Sevier County, Utah: T. 21 S., R. 4 E., SLM, Utah Sec. 1, Lots 1-3, E 1/2 SW 1/4 , SE 1/4 ; Sec. 11, E 1/2 E 1/2 ; Sec. 12, N 1/2 , SW 1/4 , W 1/2 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 13, W 1/2 NE 1/4 , NW 1/4 ; Sec. 14, N 1/2 , W 1/2 SW 1/4 ; Sec. 15, E 1/2 E 1/2 ; Sec. 22, E 1/2 NE 1/4 ; Sec. 23, W 1/2 NW 1/4 . Containing 2,095.80 acres. All of the coal in the above-described land consists of unleased Federal coal within the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Known Coal Region. This coal exploration license will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management. This exploration program will obtain coal data to supplement data from adjacent coal development The exploration program is fully described and is being conducted pursuant to an exploration plan approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The plan may be modified to accommodate the legitimate exploration needs of persons seeking to participate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the exploration plan and license are available for review during normal business hours (serialized under the number of UTU 85867) in the public room of the BLM State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah. The written notice to participate in the exploration program should be sent to both the BLM, Utah State Office, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, and to Mark Bunnell, Senior Geologist, Ark Land Company, c/o Canyon Fuel Co., LLC, Skyline Mines, HC35, Box 380, Helper, Utah 84526. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of invitation to participate was published in The Richfield Reaper, once each week for two consecutive weeks beginning the fourth week of December, 2007 and in the **Federal Register** . Any person seeking to participate in this exploration program must send written notice to both the BLM and Ark Land Company, as provided in the ADDRESSES section above, no later than thirty days after publication of this invitation in the **Federal Register** . The foregoing is published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to 43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1). Dated: February 15, 2008. Kent Hoffman, Deputy State Director, Lands and Minerals. [FR Doc. E8-3322 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on February 15, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in *United States* v. *Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation* , Case No. 2:08-cv-122, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The proposed Consent Decree resolves claims alleged by the United States, on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), against the Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (“KUCC”), under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601, *et seq.* The claim, as alleged in the Complaint, seeks recovery of Natural Resource Damages, including compensation to the public for interim losses resulting from release of hazardous substances from KUCC's mining, smelter, refinery and mill tailings facility located near Magna, Utah. The proposed Consent Decree provides that the KUCC will transfer approximately 617 acres of property known as “The Lake Point Wetlands Property,” and associated water rights to The Nature Conservatory (“TNC”). Additionally, KUCC will pay an endowment of $175,000 for management of The Lake Point Wetlands Property, implement a Restoration Plan for The Lake Point Wetlands Property, pay $113,800 in reimbursement of federal damage assessment costs, and pay $52,000 for FWS management oversight of The Lake Point Wetlands Property and restoration planning. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States and D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-06999. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax number:
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number:
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the “U.S. Treasury” or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. A copy of the Consent Decree may be reviewed at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Utah, 185 South State Street, Suite 400, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111; telephone confirmation number:
(801)524-5682. Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-3231 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Corrections Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement—Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems AGENCY: National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice. ACTION: Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Corrections
(NIC)is soliciting proposals from organizations, groups or individuals who would like to enter into a cooperative agreement with NIC for the eighteen month development phase of a new initiative, “Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems” (justice systems). *Project Goal:* The overall goal of the initiative is to establish and test articulated linkages (information tools and protocols) between local criminal justice decisions and the application of human and organizational change principles (evidence based practices) to achieve measurable reduction of pretrial misconduct and post-conviction risk of re-offending. The unique focus of the initiative is locally developed strategies of criminal justice officials (broadly defined below) that guide practice within existing sentencing statutes and rules. The initiative intends to:
(1)Improve the quality of information that leads to making individual case decisions in local systems, and
(2)engage these systems as policy making bodies to collectively improve the effectiveness and capacity of the decision processes related to pretrial release/sentencing options. The local officials will include judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators, police, human service providers, county executives and legislators, and jail, probation and pretrial services agencies' administrators. Local criminal justice decisions are defined broadly to include dispositions regarding: Pretrial release or detention and the setting of bail and pretrial release conditions, pretrial diversion or post plea diversion “sentences,” charging and plea bargaining, sentencing of adjudicated offenders regarding use of community and custody options, mitigation or reduction of sentences, and responses to violations of conditions of pretrial release and community sentences. DATES: Applications must be received by 4 p.m. EST on Friday, April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 5007, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date. Hand delivered applications should be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. At the front desk, call
(202)307-3106, extension 0 for pickup. Faxed applications will not be accepted. Only e-mailed applications which are submitted via grants.gov will be accepted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of this announcement and the required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web site at: *http://www.nicic.gov* . Hard copies of the announcement can be obtained by calling Pam Davison at 1-800-995-6423 x 3-0484 or e-mail *pdavison@bop.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* As corrections agencies (including court-based pretrial release and probation) take steps to align their supervision and intervention practices with research on offender behavior change, they and the local justice systems which they serve are increasingly aware of the lack of deliberate connection between justice system decisions (pretrial release, plea bargaining, sentencing, mitigation of sentence, revocation) and the offender management options aimed at improved long-term public safety through defendant/offender risk reduction practices. Typically justice officials employ multiple sentencing philosophies or goals, and lack a framework for purposefully weighing or prioritizing goals in individual cases. Often pretrial release/detention, diversion and sentencing decisions are made without information regarding the nature and degree of risk to re-offend and the specific dynamic risk factors that would help the local system determine who would benefit the most from specific intervention or treatment approaches. Among these “disconnections” is the over use of treatment resources for low risk offenders under the assumption that treatment programs are best employed with the more “deserving” or the “first-time, non-violent offenders.” Further, assuming risk is a function of the seriousness of the current charge, the vast majority of sentences are determined at the plea bargaining stage. Thus, in order to achieve clearer alignment of sentencing conditions with effective risk reduction, more informed plea bargaining is essential. Another critical issue is the lack of educational opportunities for judges, prosecutors, public defenders, legislators and others to learn about the evidence based practice research on offender risk reduction and to develop strategies for more informed decision making. Local criminal justice leaders need assistance in hammering out and testing concrete tools for improved decision making in individual cases, as well as the opportunity for collaborative policy making on the range and capacity of effective pretrial release, diversion and sentencing strategies needed in local justice systems to address the risks of pretrial misconduct and re-offending of their particular populations. National Institute of Corrections' Experience: Since the early 1990's, the National Institute of Corrections
(NIC)has promoted evidence based practices
(EBP)through training, information sharing, and technical assistance. At NIC the term EBP simply refers to using the best bodies of knowledge available for decision making at the system, organization, staff, and defendant and offender levels. Through its technical assistance with state and local jurisdictions, the Institute has learned that successful change efforts must maintain an integrated EBP focus in three domains: Application of the research principles themselves; organizational development through total alignment of policy, practice and performance measurement; and collaboration with the community and justice system partners who are stakeholders in the final outcomes. Learning organizations and systems that are disciplined enough to fully integrate the principles and apply them throughout the implementation process, measuring and adjusting constantly as they proceed, are able to reduce recidivism and reach other identified justice goals. NIC has a long history of developing tools and strategies for local system change at the policy level. There have been valuable collaborations with the State Justice Institute working with 40 jurisdictions on the development of intermediate sanctions. In addition, NIC has supported policy development efforts that address jail crowding, collaborative problem solving on pretrial, probation and parole violations, the design of a more effective array of criminal sanctions, prison and jail to community transition, and improved responses to women defendants/offenders at early decision points in the criminal justice system. *Progress to Date:* To guide the development of the Initiative, NIC invited a representative group of stakeholders to participate in a National Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee met on June 6-8, 2007, in Chicago, IL; and November 8 and 9, 2007, in Denver, CO. The Committee was helpful in identifying the benefits and challenges for each stakeholder group of using evidence based practice information for decision making and the key issues that must be addressed to garner their support. They also made recommendations for potential strategies to achieve project goals. The list of advisors is included as Appendix A, and a summary of the first meeting of the National Advisory Committee as Appendix B. Committee members ask that they not be contacted by organizations and individuals during the applicant preparation process. Members have expressed interest in offering their expertise to whatever organization is selected as best qualified to implement the project, both as advisors and contributors to specific aspects of the work. *Goals of the Project in the Development Phase:* NIC will award one cooperative agreement for an 18 month period to work closely with the project's National Advisory Committee and NIC project managers to develop the conceptual framework and supporting materials for engaging local jurisdictions in the achievement of project goals. Again, the goals are two fold. The first is the development of structural linkages (tools, protocols, information systems) between individual criminal justice decisions and evidence based information on defendants and offenders in order to achieve reductions in pretrial misconduct and post-conviction offending. The second is the design and refinement of pretrial and sentencing disposition strategies for the entire local system so that it has the capacity to achieve its risk reduction goals. For efficiency and clarity of purpose in engaging local court systems as pilots, the conceptual framework will be developed prior to selecting two jurisdictions as implementation and learning sites. Additional local jurisdiction pilots may be supported by private funding partners in this multi-year effort. NIC anticipates intensive work in the two pilot sites for up to three years. There are five
(5)objectives for the initial 18 month development phase of this project: Develop the conceptual framework and supporting materials for the initiative that define the research foundation and planned change strategies for the local criminal justice system demonstrations. The framework will guide intensive facilitation, training and technical assistance to selected local justice systems. Based on the framework produced in the development phase, sites will be expected to develop
(a)structural tools and protocols for individual case decision making that link information on the risks and needs of defendants and offenders to desired outcomes, and
(b)strategies for system-wide enhancements in the array of effective pretrial release, diversion and sentencing options through actions of the local justice system policy making bodies. Develop educational tools and engagement strategies that define the relevance of evidence based decision making for different criminal justice stakeholder groups, local public officials (executive and legislative branches), human services providers and the community. These tools and strategies will be tested with representatives of the market segments identified above. Develop the site selection criteria and approach for choosing the local criminal justice pilot/learning sites. Document the process and results of project development activities with NIC and the National Advisory Committee. Develop designs for process and outcome evaluation of project services and products. The evaluation project itself will be funded separately and managed directly by NIC. The evaluation design must be submitted to NIC no later than June 1, 2009, so that funding of the evaluation can occur prior to the end of fiscal year 2009. There are six
(6)deliverables for the initial 18 month development phase of this project: Project principles and framework for aligning criminal justice decisions with evidence based practice on the reduction of pretrial misconduct and post-conviction offending, and for justice system improvement and accountability, including planned change and implementation strategies, methods of organizational and stakeholder/jurisdiction assessment, basic principles of effective and efficient process and program design, core implementation strategies, measurement, and quantitative feedback. Strategies for engagement and communication with different internal and external stakeholders groups (listed on pages 1 and 2) and the local criminal justice system as a whole. Educational and training tools (multi-media) including
(a)role-specific scenarios, practical application vignettes and other active, adult learning tools that serve to visually and viscerally illustrate the new system environment for different stakeholders and system actors; and
(b)Q-and-A formatted documents to facilitate issues clarification and advocacy positions for various system participants and politically active stakeholders. Site selection criteria and approach, including a draft announcement soliciting demonstrations sites. Detailed Cooperative Agreement Project Plan, renegotiated after first 4 months of project operation. A process and outcome evaluation design for the initiative. Other deliverables anticipated during a second phase (12 months) of the project are: Individual local jurisdiction strategic work plans. At a minimum, these site plans will utilize the tools and materials developed in Phase 1. Media packets for public information and stakeholder assistance. Other implementation tools as needed such as bench books, glossaries, research and literature reviews, case studies and treatment capacity charts. Note that the media packets and other implementation tools are intended for use by interested local jurisdictions and national and state organizations across the country, as well as by the pilot sites. *Required Expertise:* The successful applicant will need the skills and capacity to provide planning and project development assistance in the following areas: Achieving organizational alignment within justice systems and agencies regarding the use of evidence based practices on reduction of pretrial misconduct and offender risk of re-offending. Facilitation of meetings and planning sessions of the National Advisory Committee, and other stakeholder and work groups. Documentation and communication of multi-level strategies, information pieces, progress reports, timelines, budgets, meeting records and surveys. Management of overall project organization and business processes. Accessing, interpreting and summarizing research in relevant fields. Acting as liaison and manager with research experts connected to the project. Conceptualization of content and process and the ability to translate concepts into appropriate documents and other forms of communication. *Application Instructions:* Please prepare a cooperative agreement proposal and limit the program narrative text to no more than 15 double spaced pages, excluding statements of organizational capacity and summaries of the experiences and capabilities of key project staff. Please submit summaries of experience and expertise and not full curricula vitae. The proposal must include: A description of project objectives, methodologies and management plan for achieving project goals in the first 18 month period; a budget narrative that defines the relative use of resources for the above objective areas or categories; a list of all persons who will be involved as a member of the project team, including their roles within the organization, areas of expertise related to this project, and complete contact information. Give at least one example of your experience or your team's experience in delivering each of the following: criminal justice system strategic planning; surveys or program evaluations in criminal justice or court related areas including the design, analysis of results and how the survey or evaluation was used for policy decision making; multi media communication for public education and criminal justice system improvement; and assessment of jurisdiction readiness for major organizational system change. Explain how you would address Quality Assurance issues and progress updates for this initiative, especially related to your responsibilities to NIC. *Application Requirements:* Applications must be submitted using OMB Standard Form 424, Federal Assistance and attachments. Application forms are available from *http://www.nicic.gov,* under the “About Us” bar, “Cooperative Agreements.” The applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced and reference the “NIC Application Number” and Title provided in this announcement. Submit an original and three copies of your full proposal (program and budget narrative, application forms and assurances). The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial accounts. As previously stated, electronic submissions will only be accepted via *http://www.grants.gov.* A telephonic conference will be conducted for persons receiving this solicitation and having a serious intent to respond on March 6, 2008, at 2 p.m. EST. In the conference, NIC project managers will respond to questions regarding the solicitation and expectations of work to be performed. Please notify Phyllis Modley electronically ( *pmodley@bop.gov* ) by noon EST on March 4, 2008, regarding your interest in participating in the conference. You will be provided with a call-in number and instructions. In addition, NIC project managers will post answers to questions received from potential applicants on its Web site for the six weeks in which the solicitation is open to public interest. Questions regarding this solicitation should be addressed to Phyllis Modley at *pmodley@bop.gov* , or to Dorothy Faust at *dfaust@bop.gov.* Authority: Public Law 93-415. *Funds Available* : NIC will fund one cooperative agreement for an estimated 18 month period for the development phase of this project for an amount not to exceed $450,000. It is anticipated that additional funds will be made available in subsequent years for both the intensive assistance to pilot/learning sites and evaluation portions of this initiative. Following award of the cooperative agreement and in the first 4 months of the project NIC, the National Advisory Committee and the awardee will work together to refine the Awardee Project Plan. Based on the successful completion of the development phase and the continued availability of funds, NIC and partner organizations plan to award additional funds for implementation of project strategies and assistance services. NIC reserves the option to competitively solicit services for subsequent phases of the project. Funds may only be used for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. No funds are transferred to state or local governments. *Eligibility of Applicants* : An eligible applicant is any private agency, educational institution, organization, individual or team with expertise in the described areas. *Review Considerations* : Applications received under this announcement will be subjected to a 3 to 5 person NIC and joint funding agency Review Process. *Number of Awards:* One. *NIC Application Number:* 08C76. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter, in box 4a of Standard Form 424. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 16.602 *Executive Order 12372* : This project is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372. *Additional Resources* : Fourteen reference documents can be found on NIC's Web site. Go to *http://www.nicic.gov* , click on “Community,” then scroll to “Shared Files,” and finally click on “Tools for Evidence Based Decision Making in Local Justice Systems.” Appendix A Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems National Advisory Committee Members November 2007 Hon. Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Edwin Burnette, Chief Public Defender, Cook County Public Defender's Office, Chicago, Illinois. Gary Christensen, PhD, Corrections Administrator, Retired, Dutchess County Jail, Poughkeepsie, New York. Major Gary Darling, Criminal Justice Planning Manager, Larimer County, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Robert Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota. Hon. Dale R. Koch, Judge, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon. Sally Kreamer, Director, 5th Judicial District, Department of Correctional Services, Des Moines, Iowa. Carlos Martinez, Chief Assistant Public Defender, Miami, Florida. Mark S. Thompson, Judicial District Administrator, Hennepin County District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hon. Michael Marcus, Judge, Circuit Court, Multanomah County, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Geraldine Nagy, Chief Probation Officer, Travis County, Austin, Texas. Wendy Niehaus, Director, Department of Pretrial Services, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Cincinnati, Ohio. Michael Planet, Executive Officer, Ventura County Superior Court, Ventura, California. Hon. Ron Reinstein, Judge, Director, Center for Evidence Based Sentencing, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, Arizona. Susan Shaffer, Director, District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, Washington, DC. David Soares, District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Albany County, New York. Thomas White, Director of Operations, Court Support Services Division, Connecticut Judicial Branch, Weathersfield, Connecticut. Appendix B Meeting Notes June 6-8, 2007. National Advisory Committee—Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Court Systems. Chicago, Illinois. *Meeting Summary:* The first day served an important purpose: To provide a common ground of understanding and appreciation for the varying roles and perspectives of the participants. Common threads were heard during these discussions. Among them were the recognition that there needed to be a systems approach to using evidence based practices information to enhance public safety and greater collaboration with community partners and stakeholders. In some jurisdictions there needed to be dramatic shifts of policy and understanding of what is most effective in reducing recidivism. Judge Reinstein described it as a “journey for change.” During the final day and one-half the group continued to explore how each stakeholder group currently uses available information to make decisions. Then, employing a case study approach, the group discussed how additional relevant information, associated with evidence-based practices, might influence or change those decisions. The group then identified the positive reasons for going to an evidence-based model and the barriers or challenges that would need to be addressed. These are outlined further in the document. When reviewing these notes, please keep in mind that one of the goals of this first meeting was to identify concerns and issues from a variety of perspectives, and not to build a consensus. Therefore, one or more of the participant's comments may be recorded in these notes and is not necessarily representative of the whole group. Day 1 *Description and Scope of NIC Project:* (Meeting Objective 1) The scope and desired results of the project reviewed along with NIC's long-term commitment to help jurisdictions make informed decisions about the most effective ways to achieve the goal of reducing recidivism. *Advisory Committee Introductions:* (Meeting Objective 2) Participants identified their home jurisdiction/agency; current position and understanding and experiences using evidence based practice
(EBP)on offender risk reduction. *Edwin Burnette, Chief Public Defender, Cook County, Illinois:* Cook County is a jurisdiction that is fortunate to be on board with evidence-based practices. “For something like this to work, probation is the straw that stirs the drink.” *Gary Christensen, PhD, Corrections Administrator, Duchess County, New York:* Runs a jail facility in an upstate rural county for last 30 years. Approaches issue of public safety from several angles. Chairs a countywide criminal justice counsel for the last six years. The purpose of the counsel is to enhance collaboration at the executive level. As a facilitator he sees himself as someone who gets the group to rally around a common goal—improving public safety. “No one can argue against that, whether you are a public defender, county attorney, judge, republican or democrat * * * we start with public safety and work through differences to achieve that goal. It comes down to who can demonstrate in the best way, with evidence, how to stop offenders from coming back * * *”. *Peggy McGarry, JEHT Foundation, New York, New York:* Interested in working with collaborative problem solving groups. With all her experience in criminal justice and the changes that have taken place over time, she would like to see us “pull what we learned together to make a difference in peoples' lives and their communities.” *Tim Lynch, PEW Charitable Trust:* PEW launched the Public Safety Performance Project which is a state-based sentencing reform campaign to find ways to reduce corrections costs, hold offenders accountable and enhance public safety. “EBP is the underlying principle to reduce prison populations and reduce recidivism.” *Mark Thompson, Judicial District Administrator, Hennepin County District Court, Minneapolis:* His jurisdiction has a half-dozen Specialty Courts trying to apply evidence-based practices and develop a system of collaboration to achieve long- and short-term goals. *Robert Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota:* Sees the need to shift the goal of achieving public safety from primarily punishment and locking offenders up for as long as possible to other, more effective approaches. Historical approaches have not produced the desired results. “Prosecutors have to look at areas such as diversion and reentry to help improve public safety.” *Hon. Dale Koch, Presiding Judge Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon:* On the board of the National Center for State Courts. Oregon budget problems are forcing his jurisdiction to look at using limited resources more effectively; there are fewer jail and prison beds, and fewer probation officers. “EBP is one of the ways to address the need to be more effective.” *Susan Shaffer, Director, District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, Washington DC:* Noted that sanctions and incentives are targeting drug defendants. Wants to look at what is being done in probation that is applicable for pretrial. “Need to look at the defendant at the front end of the criminal justice system and what will help them succeed if placed on probation.” Believes the court could benefit from information collected at the pretrial stage to inform decisions at sentencing. Not sure which of the EBP principles can be applied to pretrial, in part due to the short amount of time supervising the defendant; but is certain there is a place for EPB in the pretrial process. *Wendy Niehaus, Director, Department of Pretrial Services, Cincinnati, Ohio:* Interested in learning how to deal with women offenders and special populations from a systems approach. Interested in policy, programming and process development. Sees her jurisdiction using information to make decisions as a team. All parties are involved in the pretrial release plan including the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and the defendant. *Thomas White, Director of Operations, Connecticut Judicial Branch:* Implementation of EBP is a difficult process; and when you stop implementing it you stop doing it.” Connecticut's EBP initiative emphasized two things: changing the nature of programs and services to focus on behavior change; and changing the focus of probation from monitoring and control to one of behavior change. *Michael Planet, Executive Officer, Ventura County Superior Court, Ventura, California:* Current issues concern dealing with volume of cases and limited budget. “Greatest impact on defendants can be made at the local level.” Experienced some success in EBP with juveniles in collaboration with foundations dealing with disparity issues and use of specialty courts (e.g. Drug Court and Domestic Violence Court.). “What we can do locally is our greatest opportunity.” Pretrial is run by the Sheriff and decisions are based primarily on jail capacity. “The challenge is how to prioritize services. The Court is in a position to bring all the parties together; this is a great opportunity.” *Hon. Ronald Reinstein, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, Arizona:* “Probation is ahead of the curve in EBP.” In his jurisdiction, he sees a problem with not enough continuity in leadership and noted that any EBP initiative is vulnerable due to changes in key positions. He wants to see a process where sentencing makes sense, and does not depend on who the prosecutor is or who the judge is. “EBP is a journey for change.” *David Soares, District Attorney, Albany County, New York:* As a prosecutor, he is frustrated at seeing an entire generation of people throwing their lives away. He is further frustrated by the trend of institutions closing, particularly in the public health area. “There are opportunities for us to transform our communities and to transform lives; and if we are to change our society we need to see changes in our courts.” *Gary Darling, Jail Administrator, Ft. Collins:* “We ran a lot of programs in our jail with not much follow-up. It was not until we realized that we needed to look at things from a systems approach that we started to see some progress. We need to work with the entire community not just those in the judicial system.” As an example he described a planned program that brings health-care and housing professionals to the jail to work on release planning in order to reduce returns to jail. Two re-entry programs are going to be used, one faith-based and one run by human services. He noted that it should be interesting to see how they compare. *Sally Kreamer, Director of Correctional Services, 5th Judicial District, Des Moines, Iowa:* Involved in EBP since the late 1980's. Her jurisdiction is fortunate to have a variety of programs that are considered to be evidence-based, such as cognitive behavioral treatment. Presentence data sharing is done statewide with similar processes in all jurisdictions for accumulating and reporting information. Information is shared with all criminal justice partners. Green light and red light designations for programs can identify which programs are successful and at what rates in reducing recidivism. The court gives the department the discretion to make decisions to place an offender in treatment based on an individual assessment or risk and needs and not offense type. At first the defense attorneys fought them on this issue; but over time they accepted the process. Facilities have long waiting lists; the department now works closely with the defense to help target those that need services and maximize use of resources. “Our banked caseload is driven by risk rather than by offense type.” “Two tragic cases drove home the realization that assessment rather than offense type has to be used to determine assignments.” “We are moving towards achieving quality of programming and delivery of services.” *Carlos Martinez, Chief Assistant Public Defender, Dade County Public Defender, Miami, Florida:* Florida just allocated $147 million for new prison beds as part of an anti-murder initiative * * * largely due to reliance on anecdotal evidence and fear driven management. “In Florida, risk reduction means lock more people up.” He described prisons as being “a form of welfare for criminals.” Dade County Drug Court was one of the first in the nation. At first the data showed very high success rates but it was largely due to inaccurate methods for measuring. Once they got good data they were able to apply for grant money and improve the program. One of his goals is to help get more EBP information to assist in local decision-making. *Hon. Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin.* (Justice Abrahamson joined the meeting on the second day. Her comments are included in subsequent sections.) *Opening Arguments for Evidence-based Practices:* (Meeting Objectives 3 and 4). A review of the research on risk reduction provided a means to identify the core research principles that are key to EBP. An objective was for participants to obtain an understanding of the information and research that is available and important for making decisions. There was also a review of the history and evolution of current sentencing practices. *Definitions/Common Language:* In any profession or discipline there is language and terminology that is unique or has meaning that may not be familiar to a person who has not used it before. In many instances a person's perception of a term may be influenced by their own experiences or profession. Evidence-based practices, its principles and the research behind it, are a case in point. In order to provide a context for further work of the Committee, a short exercise was used to explore current understanding by advisors of key terms associated with EBP. No attempt was made to develop consensus on definitions at this time. The primary point of the exercise was to underscore the need to communicate clearly to stakeholders these concepts. The concepts and terms discussed included: recidivism, criminogenic factors, treatment, static and dynamic risk, need, best practices, what works, evidence based practices, meta-analysis, responsivity, intervention, cognitive behavioral, incapacitation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, just desserts, and risk reduction. *Research On What Is Effective In Changing Behavior And Reducing Recidivism* —Dot Faust provided a review of evidence based practice research. Highlights included: *Actuarial Risk instruments.* Third generation combines risk/need (static/dynamic) factors. Fourth generation adds matching of services and programs. *Stages of change:* Use of staff skills to help offenders through the stages. Has application organizationally. There is a need to educate stakeholders and the public regarding how the model works (use language people can understand). *4 main criminogenic factors:* antisocial peers/support, antisocial thinking, antisocial personality, criminal history. *Questions and discussion on mentally ill offenders:* mental illness is a risk factor but not as high for criminal behavior. Need to deal with responsivity issues. *Protective Factors:* case managers struggle with this in developing supervision plans. How to measure skill-based performance? How do you manage your hiring and training practices? With limited resources you have to target criminogenic factors with good solid case management. Projects and programs need to target these factors otherwise it may lead to failure. Dosage also is very important. Appropriate treatment shows greatest reduction in re-offending. Prosocial support. Policing refers to it as social controls. *Measurement:* what gets measured and gets feedback gets done. Data needs to have credibility. *Program implementation and program integrity:* how well you implement is the key to success. A badly designed program can have negative results. *EBP and Research for Women Offenders* —Phyllis Modley provided the following information: Gender-informed or gender responsive (Bloom and Covington) *Gender Equality defined:* Universal or Differentiated Policies Pathways perspective: Survival of abuse, (Stone Center, Carol Gilligan.) Lifetime history of trauma (55-99% of substance abusers). Primary caregiver of children. More economically disadvantaged: poverty is a greater risk factor for women than men. *Offense profiles:* Only 17% violent and mostly for lesser assault offenses. Less likely to get sentence reductions than men. Less likely to recidivate. *SAMSHA studies of women with co-occurring disorders:* Integrated services effective. *Case management model being developed:* Relational, team-based * * * . May need an integrated theory of change for women *Missouri gender specific caseloads:* Lower recidivism than general caseloads. *The Evidence and Outcomes Currently Used:* (Meeting Objective 5) The group reviewed how each stakeholder group defined outcomes and discussed the supporting evidence regarding those outcomes. *Prosecutors:* over 2500 different Prosecutor Offices. Each seen as its own “kingdom.” No one reviews charging decisions. Lots of authority and discretion with each prosecutor. Lack of adequate data systems, little meaningful data kept. General culture among prosecutors does existence on how to charge cases. Performance measures—sense of how they are doing based on anecdotal information. Diversion programs don't use data to make decisions about implementation. Basic measures kept are numbers of trials, convictions, arrests leading to charges, no meaningful measures kept on public safety. Prosecutors can have tremendous impact on public safety and other issues such as public health. Standards kept for time-lines for cases (process standards and goals). One strategy is vertical case assignment, one (no more than two) prosecutor handles the case from start to finish. Little information is automated. What is available is used primarily for prosecution. Case files rich in information and could be shared more readily with other agencies that may have an impact on public safety or used to help a defendant. Speed and volume are what is measured. Priorities given to high profile and serious felony offenses. Little attention to the misdemeanor offender. *Defense Attorneys (Public Defender):* performance measures, number of clients seen within 72 hrs (state standard), number of interviews (state standard), case outcomes (state standard), process time (state standard). Level of advocacy—internal measures—number of witness interviews, number and type of motions, number of trials, number of bar complaints, quality—supervisors and training unit, quantity—number of cases processed, National Association performance standards—no accreditation process, track speedy trial demand (within 60 days). How many cases processed, for how little money, without having cases overturned. Performance review—client contact, number of complaints (family, others, non-bar). Win-lose rate not an important consideration. Social workers provide defendant services. Juvenile Court—pleas at arraignment are measured to discourage use; policy to avoid rushing too quickly and take more time to explain consequences. Most misdemeanor cases not assigned attorney in Dade County Florida; defendants not aware of potential consequences. Need to get ownership of outcomes (caught up in the “dispo derby”). Difficulty in getting parties to make some decisions such as who determines who gets electronic monitoring (sheriff, judge, prosecutor, corrections, etc.). *Judges:* how many, how fast, and how well things are done. Assignments can be based on how well a judge performs. 50,000 judicial officers in the United States. Difficult to have outcomes for any one role. Need system outcome and all parties to work toward same goal. Sentencing system not working well, looking towards different models: drug courts, treatment, pilot programs. Don't have the data elements to track and determine if they are evidence-based to evaluate what works. Number of pleas, trials, sentenced to prison, convictions, change of judges. Where each case is in system, how long things take, which judge is having completion problems (workload tracking). AIM Project in Wisconsin—risk assessment information to be required by judges as well as information regarding the supervision/ programs that are available and effective in the community. Maintain documentation to see what works and what does not work. *Corrections/Probation:* Other than specialty courts—it's all about volume. PSI provides information. Risks/needs assessment completed. Probation—condition compliance and efficiency of case processing (timeliness of reports, assessments, contacts, case plans, warrants, program utilization, data entry.) Measures range from successful completion rates; process measures (program referrals aligned with risk and needs, program retention, program fidelity to EBP); intermediate outcomes (changes in clients' risk level scores, and increases in protective scores that buffer against criminal behavior such as job finding and retention); outcomes—technical violations of probation and re-arrest for new crimes. *Corrections/Jail Administrators:* number of disciplinary reports; transition programs—data kept one year after leaving the program; time and processing; length of stay; daily populations; mental health programs—medication and treatment, program completions, return rate; use of force; accreditation compliance; jail MIS (lots of information but not broken down in a useful format to help with programming for the offender once returned to the community); risk assessments scores. *Pretrial Services:* number of defendants interviewed; number and type of releases; time from arrest to release; number who re-offend; number of failures to appear; interventions—team of collaborators including treatment providers and probation share information (e.g., number of probation violators in jail: why are they there); trend information used for team decisions (standing committees); ad hoc reports on outcomes of special populations; standards—NAPSA and ABA; surveys. *Judicial Administration:* ABA speedy trial/time standards; decisions to place in specialty court based solely on offense type (e.g., all drug cases go to drug court); Specialty Court—program completion rates; customer satisfaction surveys—relation of offender performance to respect shown by the court officers and process; procedural justice—public trust and confidence (notably lacking in family and traffic courts); independent/specialty courts should be responsible for the research on outcomes; volume and speed; evaluation of judges performance varies and not routinely done—time, satisfaction, number of affidavits; track continuances. Day 2 Debriefing From Day One *History, definitions and outcomes:* mostly process measures of speed and volume are kept; exceptions are specialty courts; somewhat discouraging that this is the current situation and that information that is evidence-based is not available; courts not looking at outcomes; missing out on the satisfaction of seeing the affect of changes in offenders' behaviors and lives; if information is obtained, it is not distributed to others who can use it; perception of fairness is important and critical for the system to work; there is a need to measure fairness (e.g., survey and feedback); DC experience showed that when defendants felt they were fairly treated, the recidivism rate was lower; need to talk more about treatment and the quality and availability of services; need to talk about the way we do business; currently there is fear of change: too invested in the way things are done now. *Presentation—the Case Study of Abner Doolittle:* (Meeting Objectives 5 and 6). Participants used the case study to illustrate the information typically used for case decisions, and then explored the possible uses of enhanced
(EBP)information in those decisions. *Release Decision:* Is other information needed? *Pretrial:* Mental health, drugs and other issues; verify—support systems, employment, education, static factors, contacts—social and family (phone and three or more references); currently under treatment? medication? (asked by jail too); history of FTA; history under prior periods of supervision; suicide screening. *Prosecutor:* Usually what is presented (from the case study) is all that is available and is enough to make decision. Some jurisdictions don't do evaluations until booked. What was happening with the defendant for last 5 years? Is the defendant eligible for another track: i.e., mental health? What Is The Release Decision? *Judges:* Would release, no bond, some pretrial supervision. What would EBP information look like?—pretrial risk assessment for FTA and new crime/arrest (static risk); FTA on similar offenders; FTA should be from perspective of defendant behavior, what was the FTA for; information needed for risk reduction—more specific predictions such as if defendant re-offends, will it be for a non-violent versus a person crime—consider dangerousness of the potential new crime; how they performed on supervision can help predict compliance issues and concerns. *In-Custody Classification:* What information is currently used to classify an inmate? Mental health, gang affiliations, behavior in custody, assessment. What EBP information is available? Risk to re-offend, risk of escape, behavior of similar offenders in-custody? Actuarial information—not sure if this is helpful, could be too many types of classifications and bog down operations. Opinions mixed. Should have a continuity of care and attention to re-entry. Charging Decision—is other information needed? Mental health history. More specific information about criminal history—what types of victims, nature of priors. Elements of the offense. Ability to pay restitution. Charging Decision—would risk instrument help? May help with nature of charge but not enough time available to use assessment. May be considered in later decisions. Can't use propensity to commit crimes. Charging Decision—similar offenders. Defense counsel has problems using profiles of defendants (actuarial risk assessments). Decisions should be individually based. Charging should be based on the merits of the case. Defense Decision—information needed? Advice from social workers and other disposition specialists. Use information on social history and prior experiences/involvement in programs. Any special needs? Plea Negotiation Decision—information needed for plea bargain? Discovery, police report, witness interview, client/defendant statement. Talk to witnesses if enough time. What does victim want (prosecutor). Conference with counsels and judge (Cook County). More information on defendant can lead to more appropriate disposition for the individual. Sometimes communication among key parties is hampered when person is not in custody. Decision often resolved at day of trial. What the judges will and won't accept. The impact on defendant's family and dependants can influence what options will be considered in plea negotiation. Pretrial information and reports on compliance and performance. Research needed on role and value of a established relationship between defense attorney and defendant. Should have more time and opportunities to meet with the defendant before getting into plea discussions. Real concern with defense attorneys about the amount of risk assessment information available about the defendant at this stage. This is information that does not necessarily lead to better services or outcomes for the defendants. Services should not be contingent on pleading guilty. Plea Negotiation Decision—would risk assessment assist decision? Risk assessment would help a judge when both parties are at an impasse and they come to the court to arbitrate. Statutes or guidance need to be in place regarding information that can be used and how it is used at this point in case processing. (e.g. is history of substance abuse appropriate for determining treatment options, but not for guilt determination?). Often defendants coming from jail (in-custody group) do not receive an assessment (depends on jurisdiction). Pre-Sentence Report—PSI Report. What other information? Mental health Pretrial supervision/compliance/performance. Sentencing memorandum from defense. Military history. Previous treatment and supervision performance. Example of Multnomah County's data warehouse presented. How does judge get information without a PSI? Nationally the rates at which PSI's are completed vary enormously (e.g. Multnomah only 3% v. Maricopa 100% of felons). Sentencing—what information is available for sentencing? Examples from other jurisdictions provided. Sentencing—what other information is currently used? Justice Abrahamson: Guidelines developed for judges to use. American Law Institute has project for developing sentencing guidelines. Oregon has guidelines. If additional information is available, parties should be creative and depart from guidelines to seek justice. Where should the discretion lie? The prosecutor's office? Post or pre charging * * * behind closed doors? With the judge and on the record for others to see? Whether or not the defendant was detained may influence a favorable outcome for the defendant. Also, costs of sentencing options could impact decisions. *Examination of Outcomes:* (Meeting Objective 6) participants identified the benefits and potential “hooks”, legal and ethical issues, boundaries and challenges for increasing the importance of risk reduction as a central goal or outcome of their work. Participants were asked how they would accomplish this given the realities of—organizational culture, political climate, statutory mandates, available resources, and administrative directives. *Judges—Benefits and Hooks:* more job satisfaction; resolve cases in way that enhances public safety; get data to judges to show that research is valid, including the limitation of research (don't over sell it); judges want to be within the norm/middle ground of what they should be doing with EBP; builds trusting relationships between judges and probation, can build system capacity; convince judges that this creates a national basis for making difficult decisions (less social science and more public safety language.) *Judges—Issues and Challenges:* Getting judges to trust evidence and data; limitations of “good research;” how to work around mandatory sentencing; don't want to be “out in left field” (lost credibility); political—stakeholder, prosecutor, etc. * * * who won't go along with strategies; trust/relationships with other stakeholders; what is the best way to get information to the court? Ethical—make sure all the stakeholders are involved *Corrections—Benefits and Hooks:* Potentially reduce jail overcrowding; expense of jail beds; increased accountability in system; more professional job satisfaction for individual and in system as a whole; prompts an environment of education (learning environment); public safety—long-term risk reduction; better work environment—“transformed system.” *Corrections—Issues and Challenges:* Culture change more accountability (silo orientation); more collaboration needed; pitfalls of short-term results; EBP implementation never ends; alignment issues—system, organization, staff; development of data systems—meaningful data and better consumers of research; change of personal orientation for everyone in system—fear of change and lack of understanding; time constraints; overstating what EBP can do. *Pretrial—Benefits and Hooks:* Pretrial as front-end decision can create confidence in good information and system competence; pretrial risk reduction goal can enhance system management of cases (e.g., get some defendants out and identify high risk defendants); must have confidence in agency; impacts “accountable” release with valid risk assessment and reduction plans. *Pretrial—Issues and Challenges:* Faith in information and strategies; getting the “right kind” of information and the “right” time to give information; defining “risk reduction”; power and influence of current bond system—$$$-based, not offender performance-based; procedural protection of presumption of innocence. How does EBP apply in this context? Charging decisions and public safety concerns. *Defense (Public Defender)—Benefits and Hooks:* “Holistic best interests”; potential benefit to clients; better targeting of services—can assist in finding defendant appropriate services; could save dollars for jail construction; long-term—possible reduction in workload; could result in lesser restrictive sentence; use of validated information to get around mandatory sentences; better case preparation could result in better outcomes; message—“save money by being more effective”; objectivity of EBP using validated assessment and information. *Defense (Public Defender)—Issues and Challenges:* Ethical/cultural—holistic benefits for client vs. legal benefit to defendant; trusting risk tools to validate for individual differences (e.g., race, income status). Equal protection issues—will the defense need to get their own assessment? How data is defined/analyzed may be to detriment of defendant; fear of “profiling” the defendant; statute barriers may prohibit EBP; political power of some stakeholders (e.g., bail bondsmen); predictions of risk based on general profiles versus the individual; admissibility of assessment; manipulation of defendants when being assessed; promise of services if assessed as in need; may result in more defendants staying incarcerated; may result in harsher sentencing/interventions; organizationally—interference with professional judgment; culture of challenging the system. Internal and external politics; historically, the criminal justice system does not reform effectively (not messaged well); capacity needs to go along with assessment, otherwise it may lead to further justifications for incarceration. *Prosecutors—Benefits and Hooks:* Better judgments individually and programmatically; more confidence in decision making; more information available can leverage service providers to raise capacities; help manage workload; collective accountability: everyone vested in seeing positive outcomes. *Prosecutors—Issues and Challenges:* Driver is collateral consequences on how cases are handled: e.g., guns, sex offenders, INS/ICE, etc. * * *; there may require more work and faith that there is no manipulation of the process; time constraints; figure out development of plea policies: changing current structure and format. *Administration—Benefits and Hooks:* Will help with resource management (volume and speed can help with spending more time on risk reduction); system improvement including front end to enhance risk reduction such as preventative services with juvenile and families. *Administration—Issues and Challenges:* Alignment of all the organizational policies, resources, evaluations * * *; need to realize that EBP is not only for the adult system but has spillover to all components of the criminal justice system. *Identifying Strategies for NIC:* (Meeting Objective 8) After reviewing the benefits and challenges, participants developed potential strategies to achieve project goals. Note: The following list represents a full menu of proposed strategies. Not all of which were adopted in the current Request for Proposals. *Strategies to Use EBP to Reduce Risk:* Find a pilot site or demonstration sites to make the case for using EBP system-wide; need to be selected for success not failure; need leadership and commitment; need to take risk; all stakeholders should be at the same level of understanding; there should not be conflicting understanding, mixed messages and agendas (consensus amongst the participants); understanding that EBP is dynamic and needs learning environment. Work with the National District Attorneys' Association and state prosecutors' associations at their training conferences; put together training packages; train trainers (prosecutors) at the various conferences with intent that demand for such training will spread to local jurisdictions; need to show results to convince prosecutors that this is in their best interest. National Conference of State Legislatures' conference and other key national conferences, e.g., the Conference of State Chief Justices; work with pretrial services and court administrators networks and associations; develop linkages to judges' associations for information sharing and raising awareness and interest. Develop road show and information packets that can be done whenever the opportunities arise and need to carefully define public safety in terms of offender behavior change or reduction of risk to re offend. Funding by NIC of a major process and outcome evaluation so eventually a compelling case can be made. Does EBP decision making save money and achieve better outcomes? Target local public safety/criminal justice coordinating counsels to function as organizational models to introduce EBP. Include governors, (National Governor's Association), Public Defender Association, American Bar Association. Develop a framework for integrating and implementing EBP—a criminal justice systems approach. The framework paper would define the mission, goals and approach; identify the issues that need to be addressed from the perspective of different stakeholders; define terms; define roles of stakeholders, and so forth. EBP helps frame what to do; the principles of EBP will need to relate to the operational level (all the players need to know what to do and what it would look like for them). Articulate the vision and core message of the project (something to rally behind). Have outside experts come to local jurisdictions to do an analysis (not an evaluation) of the local system. (Don't start with locations that are dysfunctional.) Build a national consensus on EBP and sentencing. National symposium. Co-sponsorship by PEW, NIJ, NIC, JEHT * * * *et al,* to build sense of excitement and momentum, tying to reentry and jail overcrowding (target real issues and concerns that need new and effective direction). Provide opportunities to individuals and jurisdictions that have not had exposure to EBP and case decision making or collective policymaking. “Even just discussions can lead to positive change * * *”. Develop core principles for systems change. Insist that everything is done as a team modeling the continuum of EBP. *Tying this initiative to Re-entry:* starts at charging and providing offenders a way to successfully re-enter society. Prioritize the work with pretrial and corrections/probation agencies. These are the agencies that have the data and can operationalize and demonstrate how things work. These agencies can act as system pioneers. Judges can use the information and bring along other key players such as prosecutors. Give judges concrete data on effective interventions and practices. Provide structure for judges to use data on individual offender. Needs to be national salesperson for each of the system components who can market and teach practitioners about EBP and decision making. Dated: February 14, 2008. Thomas J. Beauclair, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-3264 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-36-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,017] Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Incorporated, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation Including On-Site Leased Workers From Hewlett Packard, Neenah, WI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 26, 2006, applicable to workers of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60762). At the request of a petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in support activities for affiliated plants engaged in the production of disposable diapers, pull-ups and wipes. New information shows that leased workers of Hewlett Packard were employed on-site at the Neenah, Wisconsin location of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Hewlett Packard working on-site at the Neenah, Wisconsin location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin, who were adversely-impacted by a shift in production of disposable diapers, pull-ups and wipes to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,017 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, including on-site leased workers of Hewlett Packard, Neenah, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 6, 2005 through September 26, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of February 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3216 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of *February 4 through February 8, 2008.* In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,512; Dunlap Industries, Inc., Production Department, Dunlap, TN: November 13, 2006.* *TA-W-62,542; Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Tempe, AZ: November 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,695; Springs Global US, Inc., Fort Mill Executive Office, On-Site Workers from Diversco, Fort Mill, SC: January 28, 2008.* *TA-W-62,695A; Springs Global US, Inc., New York, NY:* *January 28, 2008* . *TA-W-62,695B; Springs Global US, Inc., Bentonville, AR: January 28, 2008.* *TA-W-62,695C; Springs Global US, Inc., Plano, TX: January 28, 2008.* *TA-W-62,695D; Springs Global US, Inc., Park Ridge, IL: January 28, 2008.* *TA-W-62,695E; Springs Global US, Inc., Minneapolis, MN: January 28, 2008.* *TA-W-62,180; Cooper Standard Automotive, Fluid Systems Division, Archbold, OH: September 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,515; Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc., Steering Division, Watertown, CT: November 29, 2006* . *TA-W-62,570; Umpqua Lumber Company, Dillard, OR: December 10, 2006.* *TA-W-62,571; France—A Scott Fetzer Company, On-Site Leased Workers of Personnel Management, Fairview, TN: December 10, 2006.* *TA-W-62,624; State Tool and Manufacturing Company, Benton Harbor, MI: December 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,782; Quality Industrial Services, Inc., QIS Lordstown Division, Warren, OH: January 30, 2007.* *TA-W-62,664; Catawba Valley Finishing, LLC, Newton, NC: January 10, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,283; Cordis Corporation, A Subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL: October 5, 2007.* *TA-W-62,474; Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation, Huntsville, AL: November 14, 2006.* *TA-W-62,532; The Hoover Company, Floor Care Division, Main Plant, North Canton, OH: January 25, 2008.* *TA-W-62,532A; The Hoover Company, Floor Care Division, Main Plant, North Canton, OH: January 25, 2008.* *TA-W-62,532B; The Hoover Company, Floor Care Division, Distribution Center, North Canton, OH: January 25, 2008.* *TA-W-62,573; Lexmark International, Inc., Lexington, KY: December 13, 2006.* *TA-W-62,575; Norgren, Inc., Filter, Regulator, Lubricator Division, Littleton, CO: January 20, 2008.* *TA-W-62,609; Standard Motor Products, Inc., Long Island City, NY: December 24, 2006.* *TA-W-62,620; Lohmann and Rauscher, Inc., A Subsidiary of Lohmann and Rauscher International GMBH, Burlingame, KS: December 17, 2006.* *TA-W-62,621; Carrier Access Corporation, Formerly Mangrove Systems, Wallingford, CT: December 31, 2006.* *TA-W-62,681; Tyco Electronics Corporation, On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Reading, PA: January 14, 2007.* *TA-W-62,681A; Tyco Electronics Corporation, On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Birdsboro, PA: January 14, 2007.* *TA-W-62,691; Von Weise, Inc., St. Clair, MO: January 14, 2007.* *TA-W-62,730; The Bartech Group, On-Site at Delphi Corporation, Powertrain Division, Oak Creek, WI: January 18, 2007.* *TA-W-62,730A; The Bartech Group, On-Site at Delphi Corporation, Electronics and Safety Division, Oak Creek, WI: January 18, 2007.* *TA-W-62,590; Imation Corporation, Consumer-Research and Development Division, Oakdale, MN: December 18, 2006.* *TA-W-62,601; H and H Tube, A Division of Sunspring America, Leased Workers From Northern, Cheybogan, MI: December 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,601A; H and H Tube, A Division of Sunspring America, Leased Workers From Northern, Vanderbilt, MI: December 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,610; Robert Bosch Tool Corp., A Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Corp., On-Site Leased Workers of Employee Staffing, Heber Springs, AR: February 8, 2008.* *TA-W-62,625; Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, Kosciusko, MS: December 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,714; F.W. Rickard Seeds, Inc., Winchester, KY: January 21, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,764; Pineer Manufacturing Company, Rillton, PA: January 29, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-62,560; Motorola, Inc., Motorola Credit Corporation, Finance Department QZ349, Schaumburg, IL.* *TA-W-62,790; Donaldson Company, Inc., Grinnell, IA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-62,608; Precision Magnetics, Division of Arnold Magnetics Technologies, Wayne, NJ.* *TA-W-62,611; Conn-Selmer, Inc., G. Leblanc, Inc. Division, Kenosha, WI.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-62,458; Hutchens Industries, Inc., Fabrication Department, Mansfield, MO.* *TA-W-62,569; New York Air Brake Corp., A Subsidiary of Knorr Bremse, Watertown, NY.* *TA-W-62,723; Chestertown Foods, Inc., Chestertown, MD.* *TA-W-62,683; Harvey Industries, LLC, Wabash, IN.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-62,551; Lenovo, Bellevue, WA.* *TA-W-62,558; Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, A Division of HSBC North America, Fort Mill, SC.* *TA-W-62,568; IBM Corporation, Lexington, KY.* *TA-W-62,688; SEI Data, Inc., A Subsidiary of SEI Communications, Dillsboro, IN.* *TA-W-62,698; Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Hillsdale, MI.* The investigation revealed that criteria of section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of *February 4 through February 8, 2008.* Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: February 14, 2008. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3215 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,364; TA-W-62,364B] Cellular Express, Inc., D/B/A Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, MA; Including An Employee of Cellular Express, Inc., ­D/B/A Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, MA Located in Roseville, MI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 14, 2007, applicable to workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69710). The certification was amended on December 20, 2007 to include another location. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74341). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that a worker separation has occurred involving an employee of the Bedford, Massachusetts facility of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., working out of Roseville, Michigan. Ms. Vicki Yax performed support duties for the firm's Bedford, Massachusetts, software development, testing, and monitoring. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee of the Bedford, Massachusetts facility of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc. working out of Roseville, Michigan. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts who were adversely affected by increased imports following a shift in production to India. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,364 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc. Bedford, Massachusetts (TA-W-62,364), including an employee of Cellular Express, Inc., ­d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts located in Roseville, Michigan (TA-W-62,364B), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 25, 2006, through November 14, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. I further determine that workers of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts (TA-W-62,364), including an employee of Cellular Express, Inc., d/b/a Boston Communications Group, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts located in Roseville, Michigan (TA-W-62,364B), are denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of February 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3219 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,404] Motor Wheel Commercial Vehicle Systems Full Cast/Assembly Area, Berea, KY; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On January 30, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration regarding eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)applicable to workers and former workers of Motor Wheel Commercial Vehicle Systems, Full Cast/Assembly Area, Berea, Kentucky (the subject firm). The Department's Notice of affirmative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2008 (73 FR 7317). The request for reconsideration alleged that the skills of the worker group are not easily transferable to other positions in the local commuting area. Certification regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm was issued on November 30, 2007. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received new information which indicated that, within the subject firm's local commuting area, the subject workers' skills are not easily transferable to other positions. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department also confirmed that a significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and that competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the information obtained in the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers and former workers of the subject firm have met the group eligibility criteria for Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Motor Wheel Commercial Vehicle Systems, Full Cast/Assembly Area, Berea, Kentucky, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 28, 2006 through November 30, 2009, are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of February 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3220 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,260] Flexsteel Industries, Inc., Dubuque, IA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application dated January 12, 2008, the United Steel Workers, District 11, Local 1861 (the Union) requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of Flexsteel Industries, Inc., Dubuque, Iowa (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). Workers of the subject firm were certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-57,906, which expired on October 7, 2007. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination signed on December 14, 2007 was based on the finding that the subject company did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number of workers. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74344). To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information regarding employment at the subject firm. The review of the new information and findings of the initial investigation revealed that the subject firm separated a significant number of workers during the relevant period. The workers produce residential, commercial and recreational seating. The investigation also revealed that the company increased its imports of articles like or directly competitive with residential, commercial and recreational seating from 2005 to 2006 and from January through September of 2007 when compared with the same period in 2006. Furthermore, sales and production declined at the subject firm during the relevant period. In accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that increases of imports of residential, commercial and recreational seating, produced by Flexsteel Industries, Inc., Dubuque, Iowa, contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of workers and to the decline in sales or production at that firm or subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Flexsteel Industries, Inc., Dubuque, Iowa, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 8, 2007, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of February, 2008 Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3218 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,721] Oregon Cutting Systems Group, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Blount Inc., Warehouse, Clackamas, OR; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On August 31, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Oregon Cutting Systems Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Blount, Inc., Warehouse, Clackamas, Oregon (the subject facility). The Department's Notice of affirmative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51846). The negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)was issued on June 29, 2007, and the Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39644). The determination stated that the subject workers performed warehousing activities related to the production of chainsaw chains, bars, and sprockets, and that the production that the workers supported had shifted to a country that is neither a party to a free trade agreement with the United States nor a beneficiary under either the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The request for reconsideration alleged that the subject workers not only supported the production but also produced chainsaw chains, bars, and sprockets at the subject facility. The subject facility ceased to operate in March 2007. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received information confirming that the subject facility is a warehouse and that the subject workers produced neither chainsaw chains, bars, nor sprockets. New information obtained during the investigation revealed that the subject facility supported production at domestic, affiliated facilities whose production declined during 2006 (compared to 2005 levels) and during 2007 (compared to 2006 levels), and that the subject firm's reliance on foreign-produced chainsaw chains, bars, and sprockets increased during the period of decreased domestic production. In accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the information obtained in the reconsideration investigation, I determine that the subject workers' separations were caused by the decreased need of their services due to increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at an affiliated domestic facility that the workers supported. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Oregon Cutting Systems Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Blount, Inc., Warehouse, Clackamas, Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 19, 2006, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of February 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3217 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,759] Inverness Corporation, Fairlawn, NJ; Notice of Termination of Investigation In accordance with section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 29, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Inverness Corporation, Fairlawn, New Jersey. The petition regarding the investigation was signed by only one worker and therefore has been deemed invalid. Consequently, this investigation has been terminated. Another valid petition has been received for the same worker group. That petition was instituted February 13, 2008 under TA-W-62,839. Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of February, 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3214 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0083] Applied Research Laboratories, Inc.; Revocation of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's decision to revoke the recognition of Applied Research Laboratories, Inc.,
(ARL)as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7. DATES: The revocation was effective on January 28, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone
(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Notice of Final Decision The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)is giving notice of the revocation of recognition of Applied Research Laboratories, Inc.,
(ARL)as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). OSHA has taken this action following the requirements under Subsection II.E of Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 (“Subsection E”). OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7), OSHA's NRTL Program regulations. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products in the workplace that are properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. Subsection E describes the process that OSHA must use in revoking the recognition of an NRTL. This subsection sets forth three potential causes of revocation and, in the event any cause applies, provides the NRTL with opportunities to correct the deficiencies leading to the proposed revocation. It also provides the NRTL an opportunity to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on the revocation action. (ARL did not request such a hearing.) OSHA followed the process set forth in Subsection E and is revoking ARL's recognition as an NRTL. OSHA identified deficiencies in ARL's testing and certification operations that were not adequately corrected. OSHA has determined that, as a result of these deficiencies, ARL has failed to substantially satisfy the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 and Appendix A, a cause for revocation under OSHA's NRTL Program regulations. OSHA has already notified ARL of the revocation decision, and this decision is final. The effective date of revocation is shown in the DATES section, above. Consequently, the Agency no longer accepts product certifications done by ARL on or after this effective date. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0083 (formerly NRTL1-97) contains all public materials in the record concerning the recognition of ARL. You may obtain or review copies of these public documents by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of February, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-3324 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [NOTICE: (08—017)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Dr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This information collection is an application form to be considered for career exploration opportunities through job shadowing and access to NASA education resources. Students are required to submit an application package consisting of an application form, a teacher recommendation, and parent/guardian permission for parents to sign approving the child's participation. II. Method of Collection NASA will utilize a Web-base application form with instructions and other application materials also on-line. III. Data *Title:* Kennedy Education Experiences Program
(KEEP)Application. *OMB Number:* 2700-XXXX. *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 20. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Government:* $479. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3295 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that four meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate): Presenting/National Initiatives (application review): March 7, 2008. This meeting will be by teleconference from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and will be closed. Opera Honors (nominations review): March 11, 2008 in Room 527. This meeting, from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., will be closed. Opera Honors (nominations review): March 11, 2008 in Room 527. This meeting, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., will be closed. Opera Honors (overview/policy discussion): March 11, 2008 in Room 527. This meeting, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., will be open. The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 21, 2007, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven
(7)days prior to the meeting. Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691. Dated: February 19, 2008. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E8-3301 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on Wolf Creek Plant License Renewal Application; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on March 5, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Wednesday, March 5, 2008-10:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.* The Subcommittee will discuss the application submitted by the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation to extend the operating license of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 by an additional 20 years. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maitri Banerjee ( *Telephone:* 301-415-6973) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 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 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 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: February 14, 2008. G.S. Shukla, Acting Chief, Reactor Safety Branch. [FR Doc. E8-3331 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on March 5, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(2)and
(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:* *Wednesday, March 5, 2008, 8:30 a.m. until 10 a.m.* The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy ( *telephone:* 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
(ET)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 Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 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 in the agenda. Dated: February 8, 2008, Cayetano Santos, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch. [FR Doc. E8-3332 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)will hold a meeting on March 6-8, 2008, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59574). *Thursday, March 6, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.* *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal Application for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., regarding the License Renewal Application for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant and the associated NRC staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER). *10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal Application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., regarding the License Renewal Application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and the associated NRC staff's Final SER, specifically, resolution of the environmentally assisted fatigue issue, and other related matters. *1:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Selected Chapters of the SER Associated with the ESBWR Design Certification Application* (Open/Closed)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and General Electric—Hitachi Nuclear Energy
(GEH)regarding selected chapters of the SER with open items associated with the ESBWR design certification application. [ **Note:** A portion of this session may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to GEH and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).] *3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Subcommittee Report* (Open)—Report by and discussions with the Chairman of the ACRS regarding interim review of the License Renewal Application for the Wolf Creek Generating Station discussed during the Subcommittee meeting on March 5, 2008. *3:45 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. *Friday, March 7, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.* *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Meeting with Commissioner Lyons* (Open)—The Chairman will hold discussions with NRC Commissioner Lyons regarding items of mutual interest. *9:30 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee* (Open)—Discussion of the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future ACRS meetings as well as discussion of matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. *10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. *11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. *1:30 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. *Saturday, March 8, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.* *8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.: Anticipated Future Committee Schedule and Workload* (Open)—The Committee will discuss anticipated future ACRS schedule and workload. *1 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—Discussion of matters related to the conduct of Committee matters that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, I have determined that it may be necessary to close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss and protect information classified as proprietary to General Electric—Hitachi Nuclear Energy and their contractors. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Girija S. Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-6855), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov,* or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System
(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: February 15, 2008. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-3335 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment
(PRA)will hold a meeting on February 22, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. *The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:* *Friday, February 22, 2008—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.* The Subcommittee will discuss the draft report, “International HRA Empirical Study, Description of Overall Approach and First Pilot Results from Comparing HRA Methods to Simulator Data.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Sandia National Laboratories, the Paul Scherrer Institute, and Scientech LLC. 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, Dr. Hossein P. Nourbakhsh, (Telephone: 301-415-5622) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 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 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 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: February 11, 2008. Cayetano Santos, Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E8-3334 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of February 25, 2008: Closed Meetings will be held on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 2 p.m. and Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10 a.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and
(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings. Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meetings in closed sessions. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, 2008 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 27, 2008 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at
(202)551-5400. Dated: February 19, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3343 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57336; File No. SR-Amex-2007-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, to Eliminate a Volume Add-on to Amex Options Specialist Financial Requirements I. Introduction On April 10, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend its rules to eliminate a volume add-on to Amex options specialist financial requirements. The Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on December 12, 2007. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed rule change, as amended. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 34-57106 (January 4, 2008), 73 FR 2291. II. Description of the Proposal The Amex proposes to amend Rule 950-ANTE(h). Rule 950-ANTE(h) currently requires an option specialist to maintain minimum tentative net capital in the amount of $1,000,000 plus $25,000 for each option issue (option class) in excess of the initial twenty-five issues in which the specialist is registered. The amendment would eliminate the $25,000 add-on for each option class in excess of the initial twenty-five option classes. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange. 4 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 4 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the proposed rule change. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Amex member firms are subject to both the Amex and the Commission's net capital rule. 6 The multiple listing of options across markets, as well as quoting obligations of registered options traders, remote registered options traders, and supplemental registered options traders now provides multiple sources of liquidity in each options class, which diminishes the role and need to highly capitalize any one liquidity provider. Therefore, the benefits of requiring Amex options specialists to maintain net capital beyond the Commission's net capital rule have been greatly reduced. Reducing the amount of capital required to be held under the Amex net capital rule also would allow options specialists to use funds previously maintained to meet Amex net capital requirements for other purposes, lowering their cost of business and helping to ensure that they can continue to function as options specialists on the Exchange. 6 Rule 15c3-1 under the Act (17 CFR 240.15c3-1). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-36), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3254 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57298A; File No. SR-DTC-2007-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Foreign Currency Payment Option February 8, 2008. Correction In FR Doc. No. E8-2823, beginning on page 8921, the date was incorrectly stated as February 8, 2007. The correct date appears above. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3307 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57335; File No. SR-NFA-2007-05] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendments, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, to the Interpretive Notice Regarding Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information February 14, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-7 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 30, 2007, the National Futures Association (“NFA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NFA. On December 19, 2007, NFA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. NFA also has filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-7. NFA, on November 30, 2007, submitted the proposed rule change to the CFTC for approval and invoked the “ten-day” provision of section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). 3 The “ten-day” provision permits NFA to make any rule changes or amendments effective ten days after receipt by the CFTC unless, within those ten days, NFA requests review or approval by the CFTC or the CFTC notifies NFA of its intent to review the filing. By letter dated December 11, 2007, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change. 4 3 7 U.S.C. 21(j). 4 *See* Letter from Lawrence B. Patent, Deputy Director, CFTC, to Thomas W. Sexton, III, General Counsel, NFA (Dec. 11, 2007) (“Letter”). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule Change Text of Rule Change Interpretive Notices NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information National Futures Association (“NFA”) Compliance Rule 2-4 provides that Members and Associates shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their commodity futures business. Over the years, NFA's Board of Directors (“Board”) has provided guidance on certain issues to ensure that Members and Associates understand their responsibilities to observe just and equitable principles of trade and to act honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of customers. Compliance Rule 2-4 prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain another Member's or Associate's confidential information or trade secrets without that person's permission. It also prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly or recklessly misusing confidential information or trade secrets in their possession. Although that rule does not seek to regulate business disputes between Members or extend beyond their commodity futures activities, it does reach conduct that could potentially harm futures customers. Conduct that may violate Compliance Rule 2-4 includes: • Misusing sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, or purposefully or recklessly violating the firm's privacy policy; • Disclosing customer orders prior to execution (except as permitted by exchange rules); or • Obtaining or attempting to obtain information disclosing a CTA's historical trading positions without the CTA's permission. These are merely examples of conduct that could potentially harm customers. Any Member or Associate that knowingly obtains or seeks to obtain confidential information or trade secrets of another Member or Associate without that person's permission or that knowingly or recklessly misuses trade secrets and/or proprietary information in the conduct of its commodity futures business violates Compliance Rule 2-4. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NFA has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act 5 makes NFA a national securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the activities of NFA Members who are registered as brokers or dealers in security futures products under section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act. 6 The revised interpretive notice applies to all NFA Members, including those who are registered as security futures brokers or dealers under section 15(b)(11). 5 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k). 6 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11). NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 requires NFA Members and Associates to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their commodity futures business. The notice makes clear that NFA Members and Associates violate NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 if they knowingly obtain or seek to obtain another NFA Member's or Associate's confidential information or trade secrets without that person's permission, or knowingly or recklessly misuse confidential information or trade secrets in their possession when these activities may harm futures customers. The amendments to the notice make technical changes that do not affect the substance of the interpretive notice. 2. Statutory Basis The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act. Section 15(A)(k) requires NFA to have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in connection with security futures products. The proposed rule change accomplishes this by prohibiting the misuse of nonpublic information. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The interpretive notice should, however, prevent NFA Members from using illegitimate means to gain a competitive advantage when those means could harm futures customers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action NFA, on November 30, 2007, submitted the proposed Interpretive Notice entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information” to the CFTC for approval and invoked the “ten-day” provision of section 17(j) of the CEA. 7 The CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change. 8 The proposed rule change became effective on December 11, 2007. 7 7 U.S.C. 21(j) (2002). 8 *See* Letter, *supra* note 4. Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, could have summarily abrogated the proposed rule change and required that the proposed rule change be re-filed in accordance with the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act. 9 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change conflicts with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods. Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NFA-2007-05 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-05. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NFA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-05 and should be submitted on or before March 14, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(75). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3255 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57343; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-18] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing Standards for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4) February 15, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 8, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC (also referred to as the “NYSE Arca Marketplace”), which is the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4), the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes.” The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(d), the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes,” to correct certain cross-references to reflect the current numbering of NYSE Arca's Rules. 5 More specifically, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(d) is being updated to cross-reference provisions of NYSE Arca Rules 5.13(b) and (c), which govern the designation of and maintenance criteria for narrow based indices upon which options may be based. The rule currently cross-references a rule no longer in existence, former Rule 7.3(b) and (c), which also governed the designation of and maintenance criteria for narrow based indices upon which options may be based. 6 5 In 2004, in connection with its demutualization, the Exchange amended the numbering of the NYSE Arca Rules, but inadvertently failed to update the numbering of the NYSE Arca rule cross-references in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49718 (May 17, 2004), 69 FR 29611 (May 24, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-08). 6 *See* e-mail from Tim Malinowski, Director, Exchange Traded Funds, NYSE Euronext, to Christopher Chow, Special Counsel, Commission, dated February 15, 2008 (“February 15 e-mail”). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will clarify the rule cross-references and eliminate unnecessary confusion in its rule structure. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange states that written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange fulfilled this requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 11 The Exchange proposes only to correct outdated cross-references within NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(d), 12 and there is no reason to delay bringing NYSE Arca's rulebook up to date. 11 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 12 In 2005, the Exchange amended NYSE Arca Rule 5.13(b)(6) by increasing the amount that no single security represents more than the weight of the index from 25% to 30% and that the five highest weighted components in the index was increased from 60% to 65% for indexes consisting of fewer than 25 components. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52923 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 74399 (December 15, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-79). Other than this amendment, current NYSE Arca Rules 5.13(b) and
(c)are substantively identical to the previously cross-referenced rules. *See* February 15 Email, *supra* at n. 6. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-18 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-18. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-18 and should be submitted on or before March 14, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3326 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11167 and # 11168] Tennessee Disaster Number TN-00018 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration, ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA—1745—DR), dated 02/07/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-Line Winds, and Flooding *Incident Period:* 02/05/2008 through 02/06/2008. *Effective Date:* 02/12/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2008. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/07/2008. ADDRESSES: *Submit completed loan applications to:* U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee, dated 02/07/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Benton, Hickman, Houston, Lewis, Montgomery, Perry, Trousdale, Williamson. *Contiguous Counties:* *Kentucky:* Christian, Todd. *Tennessee:* Cheatham, Dickson, Henry, Humphreys, Lawrence, Marshall, Maury, Rutherford, Stewart. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-3336 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6106] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-573, DS-574, DS-575, and DS-576, Overseas Schools Grant Request Automated Submissions Program (GRASP), OMB Control No. 1405-0036 ACTION: Notice of request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the **Federal Register** preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • Title of Information Collection: Overseas Schools Grant Request Automated Submissions Program (GRASP). • OMB Control Number: OMB Control No. 1405-0036. • Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. • Originating Office: Bureau of Administration, A/OPR/OS. • Form Number: DS-573, DS-574, DS-575, and DS-576. • Respondents: Recipients of grants. • Estimated Number of Respondents: 194. • Estimated Number of Responses:194. • Average Hours Per Response: 90 minutes. • Total Estimated Burden: 291 hours. • Frequency: Annually. • Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain a benefit. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice, should be directed to Keith D. Miller, Office of Overseas Schools. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: millerkd2@state.gov.* • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Keith D. Miller, Office of Overseas Schools, U.S. Department of State, Room H-328, 2301 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-0132. • *Fax:* 202-261-8224. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Keith D. Miller, Office of Overseas Schools, U.S. Department of State, Room H-328, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and OMB control number in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Keith D. Miller, Office of Overseas Schools, U.S. Department of State, Room H-328, 2301 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-0132, who may be reached on 202-261-8200 or at *millerkd2@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The Office of Overseas Schools of the Department of State (A/OPR/OS) is responsible for determining that adequate educational opportunities exist at Foreign Service posts for dependents of U.S. Government personnel stationed abroad and for assisting American-sponsored overseas schools to demonstrate U.S. educational philosophy and practice. The information gathered enables A/OPR/OS to advise the Department and other foreign affairs agencies regarding current and constantly changing conditions, and enables A/OPR/OS to make judgments regarding assistance to schools for the improvement of educational opportunities. *Methodology:* Information is collected via electronic media. Dated: December 12, 2007. Peggy M. Philbin, Executive Director, Bureau of Administration, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-3361 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6107] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Public Diplomacy Program Surveys, OMB Control No. 1405-0158 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Public Diplomacy Program Surveys. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0158. • *Type of Request:* Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office (PDEO). • *Form Number:* None. • *Respondents:* Respondents of program assessments and/or program monitoring of public diplomacy activities under the collection may include program applicants, participants, alumni, administrators, and hosts or grantee organizations involved in the programs that PDEO is assessing or evaluating. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 25,131. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 25,131. • *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. • *Total Estimated Burden:* 12,565 hours. • *Frequency:* On Occasion. • *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for up to 30 days from February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: kastrich@omb.eop.gov* . You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • *Fax:* 202-395-6974 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents from Melinda L. Crowley, U.S. Department of State, Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office (PDEO), 301 4th Street SW., Room 848 (SA-44), Washington, DC 20547, who may be reached on 202-203-7136 or at *CrowleyML@state.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The information collection allows PDEO the ability to regularly collect necessary data from program participants. The performance measurement and evaluation data obtained from program participants allows PDEO to better assess and improve the DOS exchange and public diplomacy programs, while complying with the reporting requirements mandated by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. These programs assist the Department of State's mission to promote a balanced and accurate view of the United States and build world partnerships. *Methodology:* Data captured through this information collection will be derived from respondents' electronic surveys, personal interviews and/or focus groups. Respondents include program applicants, participants, alumni, administrators, hosts and grantee organizations involved in the programs that PDEO is assessing or evaluating. Dated: February 8, 2008. Rick Ruth, Executive Director, Public Diplomacy Evaluation Office, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-3369 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6105] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “El Greco to Velazquez: Art During the Reign of Philip III” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “El Greco to Velazquez: Art During the Reign of Philip III”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, from on or about April 20, 2008, until on or about July 27, 2008; at the Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University, Durham, NC, from on or about August 21, 2008, until on or about November 9, 2008; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: February 14, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-3344 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Noise Exposure Map Notice: Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review for Centennial Airport, Englewood, CO AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)announces its determination that the noise-exposure maps (NEM's) submitted for Centennial Airport, Englewood, CO, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150, are in compliance with applicable requirements. In conjunction with the NEM's, the FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program
(NCP)submitted for Centennial Airport, per 14 CFR Part 150. This program will be approved or disapproved on or before August 12, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of the FAA's determination on the NEM's and the start of the FAA's review of the associated NCP is February 14, 2008. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Bruce, Federal Aviation Administration, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249, telephone: 303-342-1264, e-mail: *linda.bruce@faa.gov.* Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program also should be submitted to the above office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the FAA's finding that NEM's submitted for Centennial Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of 14 CFR Part 150, effective February 14, 2008. Further, the FAA is reviewing that airport's proposed NCP, which will be approved or disapproved on or before August 12, 2008. This notice also announces the availability of this proposed program for public review and comment. Under 49 U.S.C., section 47503 (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA NEM's that meet applicable regulations and depict non-compatible land uses, as of the date of submission of such maps; a description of projected aircraft operations; and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted NEM's that are found by the FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (14 CFR Part 150), promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit to the FAA for approval a NCP that sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses. The Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority owns and operates Centennial Airport, located in the Denver suburb of Englewood, CO. In April 2002, the Executive Director of the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority requested the FAA to review the NCP and NEM's for Centennial Airport, contained in the *Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study Program.* The FAA requested corrections be made to the NCP, and worked with the airport authority to revise the study. Subsequently, the airport authority submitted to FAA a revised version of the compatibility study program in August 2003. Due to unrelated issues, FAA action on the study was delayed until June 2006, when the FAA issued a grant to the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority to update Centennial Airport's noise exposure maps. This update was completed in November 2007. On December 1, 2007, the Executive Director of the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority submitted to the FAA NEM's, descriptions, and other documentation developed as part of an update to the *Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study Program* . The authority requested the FAA to review this material and the NEM's, as described in section 47503 of the Act; and approve the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, as a NCP under section 47504 of the Act. These updated NEM's reference in this notice are the maps that FAA has determined are in compliance with application requirements. Further, the NCP submitted in conjunction with these updated NEM's and referenced in this notice, is the final version of the *Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study Program* , dated August 2003. The FAA has completed its review of the NEM's and related descriptions submitted for Centennial Airport. The specific documentation determined to constitute the NEM's includes the following from the *Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Study Program* and *Centennial Airport Noise Contour Map Update* : • Supplemental chapter, titled *Centennial Airport Noise Contour Map Update: Noise Contour and Population Analysis* , provides— —Updates to Forecasts of Aviation Activity (see pages 1-4) —Figure 4, Revised 2006 Existing Noise Exposure Map (page 13) —Figure 5, Revised Future 2012 Noise Exposure Map (page 15) • Section B describes prior forecasts of aviation activity. • Section C describes noise analysis used to develop the existing and future contours. • Section D describes land use analysis. • Section F describes the noise abatement alternative evaluation, including prior existing Noise Exposure Map (Figure F.17). • Section G summarizes actions and recommendations, including prior Future Noise Exposure Map (Figure G.4). • Section H—Public and Airport User Consultation Summary. • Appendix—Public Hearing Comments and Responses and Public Involvement Plan. The FAA has determined that these maps for Centennial Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on February 14, 2008. The FAA's determination on an airport operator's NEM's is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a NCP or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a NEM submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the NEM's to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under 14 CFR Part 150 or through the FAA's review of NEM's. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport sponsor that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport sponsor, under 14 CFR Part 150.21, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished. The FAA has formally received the NCP for Centennial Airport, also effective on February 14, 2008. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of a NCP, but requires further review prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before August 12, 2008. The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden or interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. The FAA will consider, to the extent practicable, all comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities. Electronic versions of the noise exposure map update and the proposed noise compatibility program are available at the following Internet sites: 1. *http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/northwest mountain/environmental/.* 2. *www.centennialairport.com.* ADDRESSES: Paper copies of these documents are available for examination at the following locations: 1. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Suite 315, Renton, Washington 98057-3356,
(425)227-2611. 2. Federal Aviation Administration, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249-6361,
(303)342-1264. 3. Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority, 7800 South Peoria Street, Englewood, CO 80112,
(303)790-0598. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2008. Donna P. Taylor, Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region. [FR Doc. 08-788 Filed 2-21-08: 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
U.S. Code
16 references not yet in our index
  • 25 CFR 151
  • 43 CFR 2650.7(d)
  • 43 CFR 4
  • 90 Stat. 1083
  • 43 CFR 3410
  • 43 CFR 3472.1
  • 43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1)
  • Pub. L. 93-415
  • 26 USC 2813
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 240.15
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • 14 CFR 150
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 465
C.F.R.§ 151.10
U.S.C.§ 4321
U.S.C.§ 201
U.S.C.§ 9601
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 2273
C.F.R.§ 1910.7
U.S.C.§ 3506
Cite25 CFR 151
Cite43 CFR 2650.7(d)
Cite43 CFR 4
Cites 43 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.