Notices. 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review Reports of Suspicious Orders or Theft/Loss of Listed Chemicals/Machines

21,772 words·~99 min read·/register/2008/02/25/08-799·

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

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [OMB Number 1117-0024] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review Reports of Suspicious Orders or Theft/Loss of Listed Chemicals/Machines. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration

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

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 72, Number 241, page 71435 on December 17, 2007, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 26, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Overview of this information collection:*

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

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

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

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

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

(6)An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: DEA estimates that this collection takes 500 annual burden hours. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: February 19, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-3471 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request February 19, 2008. The Department of Labor

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

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection *Title of Collection:* Standard on the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) (29 CFR 1910.147). *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0150. *Agency Form Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Private sector: Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 769,748. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 3,013,603. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The collections of information contained in 29 CFR 1910.147 are needed to reduce injuries and deaths in the workplace that occur when employees are engaged in maintenance, repair, and other service related activities requiring the control of potentially hazardous energy. For additional information, see related notice published at 72 FR 61378 on October 30, 2007. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3445 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-018)] National Environmental Policy Act; Space Shuttle Program AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(PEA)for Space Shuttle Program

(SSP)transition and property disposal. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), NASA's NEPA policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216, Subpart 1216.3), and Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, NASA has prepared and issued a Draft PEA for proposed Space Shuttle Program transition and property disposal activities to assist in the NASA decision making process. The Proposed Action is to implement a structured process for the disposition of the SSP real and personal property consisting of a coordinated series of actions. The focus of the SSP Transition and Property Disposal activity is to evaluate SSP real and personal property in accordance with NASA Procedural Requirements

(NPR)8800.15, “Real Estate Management Program Implementation Manual,” and NPR 4300.1, “NASA Personal Property Disposal Procedural Requirements,” to select the best option for disposition. The only alternative to the Proposed Action discussed in detail is the No Action Alternative where disposition of SSP property would be unplanned rather than being accomplished in a systematic and orderly process. At a minimum, NASA would reduce maintenance to levels consistent with Federal Government standards for excess and surplus properties ( *i.e.* , 41 CFR 101-47.401 and 101-47.4913). DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on environmental issues and concerns, preferably in writing, on or before March 28, 2008, or 30 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice, whichever is later. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted via first class, registered, or certified mail should be addressed to AS10/Environmental NEPA Coordinator, SSP Transition & Retirement Program, NASA Marshall Space Fight Center, Building 4249/100C, MSFC, Alabama 35812. While hard copy comments are preferred, comments may be submitted via electronic mail to: *nasa-sspea@mail.nasa.gov.* The Draft PEA may be reviewed at the following location:

(a)NASA Headquarters, Library, Room 1J20, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001 (202-358-0168). It also may be examined at the following locations by contacting the pertinent Freedom of Information Act Office:

(b)NASA, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 (256-544-1837); and

(c)NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 (321-867-2745). Hard copies of the Draft PEA also may be viewed at other NASA Centers (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below). Limited hard copies of the Draft PEA are available, on a first request basis, by contacting Donna L. Holland at the address or telephone number indicated herein. The Draft PEA will be available for public review online at the following address: *http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/relatedlinks.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AS10/Environmental Engineering and Occupational Health Office, SSP Transition and Property Disposal, Marshall Space Flight Center, Building 4249/100C, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812, 1-256-544-7201, or electronic mail at *Donna.L.Holland@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSP is an extremely large and complex program spanning decades and requiring the efforts of a broad spectrum of talent located throughout NASA and many commercial entities. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush presented a new U.S. Space Exploration Policy to the nation. In the announcement, the President directed NASA to use the Space Shuttle to fulfill its obligation to complete assembly of the International Space Station and then to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010. Consequently, SSP Transition and Retirement is being proposed as a structured process for the disposition of SSP real and personal property consisting of a coordinated series of actions. SSP real and personal property would be evaluated in accordance with NPR 8800.15, “Real Estate Management Program Implementation Manual,” and NPR 4300.1, “NASA Personal Property Disposal Procedural Requirements,” to select the best option for disposal. The Draft SSP PEA addresses the environmental impacts associated with implementing a series of actions in the structured process for disposition of SSP real and personal property. For the purpose of real and personal property disposition, the overall goals of SSP Transition and Retirement are to methodically assess the SSP assets and provide for their disposition in a manner that fully realizes any remaining value of those assets, and to ensure that the actions taken by NASA comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The primary decision to be made by NASA, supported by information contained in the PEA, is the manner of disposition of the SSP assets. NASA has applied a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to ensure that the environmental resources at each site were analyzed and potential issues identified for the disposition of SSP-related real and personal property. Shuttle-related personal property includes hundreds of thousands of items ranging from common parts to complex tooling and flight hardware. The disposition of common parts would have no potential for significant impacts to the environment and is not analyzed in the PEA. Personal property, such as complex tooling and flight hardware, may have the potential to adversely affect the environment and is analyzed in the PEA. The environmental impacts of principal concern are those that would result from disposition of Historic Resources. As the SSP approaches the end of its mission, a variety of buildings and facilities at several NASA installations will be modified for other NASA Programs or will no longer be of use to NASA. For any SSP building or facility no longer needed by NASA, NASA will initiate the standard process for addressing excess infrastructure. NASA will conduct any additional NEPA analysis, as necessary and appropriate, before final decisions on the disposition of SSP infrastructure are made. If any such SSP assets are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, NASA will take no action that would affect any such property until the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process is complete. Under NASA's Proposed Action, SSP transition and property disposal activities would be expected to occur at the following NASA sites: —Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California —George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama —John F. Kennedy Space Center, Brevard County, Florida —John C. Stennis Space Center, Hancock County, Mississippi —Johnson Space Center El Paso Forward Operating Location, El Paso, Texas —Johnson Space Center Ellington Field, Houston, Texas —Johnson Space Center White Sands Test Facility (and the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range), Las Cruces, New Mexico —Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas —Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia —Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, Louisiana The Draft PEA may be viewed at the following NASA locations by contacting the pertinent Freedom of Information Act Office or by telephoning:

(a)NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650-604-3273);

(b)NASA, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA 93523 (661-276-2704);

(c)NASA, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland, OH 44135 (1-866-404-3642);

(d)NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301-286-4721);

(e)NASA, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 (228-688-2118);

(f)NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 (281-483-8612);

(g)NASA, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 (757-864-2497);

(h)NASA, Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, LA 70189 (504-257-2629); and

(i)NASA, White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM 88004 (505-524-5024). In addition the Draft PEA may be examined at:

(j)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109. Written public input and comments on alternatives and environmental issues and concerns associated with proposed SSP transition and property disposal activities are hereby requested. Olga M. Dominguez, Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure and Administration. [FR Doc. E8-3405 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated September 28, 2007, Mr. Sherwood Martinelli, representing Friends United for Sustainable Energy (Petitioner), has requested that the NRC

(1)issue orders, effective immediately, to suspend the NRC licenses for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) until the new emergency notification siren system is fully approved by both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the NRC and

(2)fine Entergy Nuclear Operations (Entergy, or the licensee) $130,000 per day from the date of his petition ( *i.e.* , September 28, 2007) until Entergy complies with the NRC's Confirmatory Order of January 31, 2006, which requires the licensee to install backup power for the Indian Point siren system. On January 24, 2008, the Petitioner amended the petition citing concerns with recently discovered corrosion on sirens for the new emergency notification system. In the amended petition, the Petitioner requested that the NRC

(1)issue an order to immediately place both Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 in Cold Shutdown,

(2)suspend Entergy's license to operate Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 until such time as they are in full compliance with their design basis threat, current licensing basis, and all NRC rules and regulations, and

(3)fine Entergy on a daily basis for no less than $500,000 until such time as the sirens have been fully approved by all levels of government. The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). On November 1 and December 19, 2007, the Petitioner was informed in telephone calls that the request for immediate action for the original petition was denied. In addition, on January 30, 2008, the Petitioner was informed by electronic transmission that the request for immediate action for the amended petition was also denied. The Petitioner participated in a conference call with the NRR Petition Review Board

(PRB)on December 21, 2007, to discuss the petition. The additional information provided by the Petitioner was considered by the PRB before making its final recommendation. By letter dated February 12, 2008, the Director accepted for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, the Petitioner's concerns regarding

(1)the licensee's failure to implement the new emergency notification siren system in a timely manner and

(2)the recently identified corrosion found on sirens for the new emergency notification system. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. A copy of the petition and addenda can be located at Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems Accession Nos. ML072760602 and ML080250075, respectively, and are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of February 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J. E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3472 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-395] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations,* Part 50, (10 CFR), Section 50.46, “Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,” (10 CFR 50.46) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, “ECCS Evaluation Models,” (Appendix K) for the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12, issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the licensee), for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Therefore, as specified in 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has performed an environmental assessment as described in this notice and has made a finding of no significant impact. The action proposed by the licensee also included a request for an exemption from 10 CFR 50.44, “Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors,” (10 CFR 50.44). The proposed exemption from 10 CFR 50.44 is not being considered further by the NRC staff because revisions to 10 CFR 50.44 (68 FR 54123, dated September 16, 2003), such that it does not refer to specific types of zirconium cladding, remove the need for such an exemption. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would allow a third cycle of irradiation (i.e., burnup) for one lead test assembly

(LTA)containing fuel rods with advanced cladding alloys. This third cycle of irradiation is expected to begin in the Cycle 18 core for VCSNS in the spring of 2008. An exemption previously issued by the NRC on January 14, 2005, authorized the use of four LTAs up to a lead rod average burnup limit of 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU). The cladding in two of those four LTAs is entirely Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding. Each of the other two LTAs uses sixteen fuel rods with AXIOM TM cladding with the remainder of the rods using Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding. Based upon the results of examinations of these four LTAs during the VCSNS Cycle 17/18 refueling outage, the licensee may select either one of the Optimized ZIRLO TM LTAs or one of the LTAs containing both Optimized ZIRLO TM plus AXIOM TM cladding for the third cycle of irradiation. The third cycle of irradiation is expected to take the LTA from a burnup of about 55,000 up to 75,000 MWd/MTU. The burnup limits are not part of the technical specifications (TS), but are design bases limits, and limit the current fuel rod-average burnup to less than or equal to 62,000 MWd/MTU. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated May 31, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated October 11, 2007. Also, information in the licensee's letters dated September 3 and November 11, 2004, that supported the exemption previously issued on January 14, 2005, has been considered in this action. The Need for the Proposed Action As the licensee states in its letter dated September 3, 2004, “As the nuclear industry pursues longer operating cycles with increased fuel discharge burnups and more aggressive fuel management, corrosion performance requirements for nuclear fuel cladding become more demanding. In addition, fuel rod internal pressures (resulting from increased fuel duty, use of integral fuel burnable absorbers (IFBAs) and corrosion/temperature feedback effects) have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design criteria. Available industry data [* * *] indicate the corrosion resistance improves for cladding with a lower tin content,” and “In addition, developmental testing has shown that small additions of some alloying elements will further improve the corrosion resistance, microstructure and mechanical properties of the cladding,” and “To meet these needs, Westinghouse Electric Company has developed a lead test assembly program in cooperation with the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. One element of the program is use of Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding [* * *]” and another element of the program is the use of LTAs with AXIOM TM cladding. As the licensee states in its application, 10 CFR 50.46 specifically refers to fuel with Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM cladding and does not include Optimized ZIRLO TM or AXIOM TM cladding. Appendix K, paragraph I.A.5, references an analysis that utilizes the Baker-Just equation which assumes use of a zirconium alloy different than the Optimized ZIRLO TM or AXIOM TM cladding used in the LTAs. Therefore, the exemption is needed because the NRC regulations identified above specifically refer to light-water reactors containing fuel consisting of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO TM cladding and the newer zirconium-based alloys of Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM are not specifically of the same composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO TM . Therefore, the licensee needs an exemption to insert one of the four above-mentioned LTAs into the VCSNS reactor core for further irradiation. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the use of one fuel assembly using either all Optimized ZIRLO TM cladding or a combination of Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM cladding for a third cycle of irradiation up to a burnup of 75,000 MWd/MTU. The following is a summary of the staff's evaluation: In this environmental assessment, the NRC staff is also relying on the results of a study conducted for it by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

(PNNL)entitled, “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU [gigawatt days per metric ton uranium],” (NUREG/CR-6703, PNNL-13257, January 2001). Although the study evaluated the environmental impacts of high burnup fuel up to 75,000 MWd/MTU, certain aspects of the review were limited to evaluating the impacts of extended burnup up to 62,000 MWd/MTU because of the need for additional data about the effect of extended burn-up on gap-release fractions. During the study, all aspects of the fuel-cycle were considered, from mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication through normal reactor operation, transportation, waste management, and storage of spent fuel. The staff has concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety, and would have no adverse effect on the probability of any accident. For accidents that involve damage or melting of the fuel in the reactor core, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected by the extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of an accident will not be affected. For accidents in which the core remains intact, the increased burnup may slightly change the mix of fission products that could be released in the event of a serious accident, however the staff concludes that the limited number of high burnup fuel rods in one LTA will not result in a significant change during core-wide events. Accidents that involve the damage or melting of the fuel in the reactor core and spent-fuel handling accidents were also evaluated in NUREG/CR-6703. The accidents considered were a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), a steam generator tube rupture, and a fuel-handling accident. For LOCAs, the amount of radionuclides that would be released from the core

(1)is proportional to the amount of radionuclides in the core and

(2)is not significantly affected by the gap-release fraction. The gap-release fraction is a small contributor to the amount of radionuclides available for release when the fuel is severely damaged. Any increase in the amount of some longer-lived radionuclides available for release from the single LTA

(1)will be small and

(2)will not result in a significant increase in the overall core inventory of radionuclides. Therefore, there would be no significant increase in the previously calculated dose from a LOCA and the dose would remain below regulatory limits. The pressurized-water reactor steam generator tube rupture accident involves direct release of radioactive material from contaminated reactor coolant to the environment. No change is being requested by the licensee in the VCSNS TS pertaining to allowed cooling-water activity concentrations. The maximum coolant activity is regulated through TS that are independent of fuel burnup. Therefore, the gap-release fraction does not significantly affect the amount of radionuclides available for release during a steam generator tube rupture. Therefore, there would be no significant increase in the previously calculated dose from a steam generator tube rupture and the calculated dose would remain below regulatory limits. The scenario postulated to evaluate potential fuel-handling accidents involves a direct release of gap activity to the environment. The assumptions regarding gap activity are based on guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.25, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors (Safety Guide 25)” and NUREG/CR-5009, “Assessment of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors,” February 1988; the gap activity consists primarily of noble gases and iodine. The isotopes that contribute significant fractions of the whole body and thyroid doses are 87 Kr and 131 I, respectively. The inventory of iodine, the primary dose contributor, decreases with increasing burnup. In addition, the single LTA will only contribute a small variation in the isotopic population of the entire VCSNS core (157 assemblies). The licensee assessed, in its letter dated October 11, 2007, the conservatisms associated with the spent fuel pool decontamination factor, the assembly relative power, the thyroid dose conversion factors, fuel offloading time, the reactor building purge isolation and the likely mechanical damage to a fuel assembly from the fuel handling accident. In summarizing these factors the licensee estimates that the calculated doses for the fuel handling accident would be reduced by approximately 77 percent. Based on the considerations discussed above, the staff concludes

(1)that the increase in the previously calculated dose resulting from a fuel-handling accident involving the one LTA would not be significant and

(2)that the dose would remain below regulatory limits. Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid, or solid radiological effluents to unrestricted areas are kept “as low as reasonably achievable.” Therefore, the staff concluded that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological effluents released into the environment. No significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure will occur. The impacts to workers is expected to be reduced with higher irradiation due to the need for less frequent outages for fuel changes and less frequent fuel shipments to and from reactor sites. The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5 years after discharge from the reactor. The NUREG/CR-6703 report, concluded that doses associated with incident-free transportation of spent fuel with burnup to 75 GWd/MTU are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, for all regions of the country if dose rates from the shipping casks are maintained within regulatory limits. Increased fuel burnup will decrease the annual discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, which will postpone the need to remove spent fuel from the pool. With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts of reactor operation with extended irradiation, the proposed changes involve systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. Therefore, the proposed action does not result in any significant changes to land use or water use, or result in any significant changes to the quality or quantity of effluents. The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to endangered or threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened species are expected. The proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historical or archaeological sites. The proposed action will not change the method of generating electricity or the method of handling any influents from the environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the amendments. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the study conducted by PNNL for the NRC, which is entitled, “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU,” (NUREG/CR-6703, PNL-13257, January 2001). The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed amendment and this alternative are similar. However, it would deny to the licensee and the NRC operational data on Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM LTAs and the performance of fuel at extended burnup conditions. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, NUREG-0719, dated May 1981, or in NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.'' Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on December 31, 2007, the staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, R. Mike Gandy of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated May 31, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071550105), as supplemented on October 11, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072890083). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of February, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert Martin, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-3486 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiemployer Plan Regulations AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of request for OMB approval. SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC)is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collections of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by March 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Copies of the collection of information may also be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address or by visiting the Disclosure Division or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://www.pbgc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald F. McCabe, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved and issued control numbers for the collections of information, described below, in PBGC's regulations relating to multiemployer plans (OMB approvals expire March 31, 2008). The collections of information for which PBGC is requesting extension of OMB approval are as follows: 1. Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR Part 4041A) (OMB Control Number 1212-0020) Section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA authorizes PBGC to prescribe reporting requirements for and other “rules and standards for the administration of” terminated multiemployer plans. Section 4041A(c) and (f)(1) of ERISA prohibit the payment by a mass-withdrawal-terminated plan of lump sums greater than $1,750 or of nonvested plan benefits unless authorized by PBGC. The regulation requires the plan sponsor of a terminated plan to submit a notice of termination to PBGC. It also requires the plan sponsor of a mass-withdrawal-terminated plan that is closing out to give notices to participants regarding the election of alternative forms of benefit distribution and, if the plan is not closing out, to obtain PBGC approval to pay lump sums greater than $1,750 or to pay nonvested plan benefits. PBGC uses the information in a notice of termination to assess the likelihood that PBGC financial assistance will be needed. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information on alternative forms of benefit to make personal financial decisions. PBGC uses the information in an application for approval to pay lump sums greater than $1,750 or to pay nonvested plan benefits to determine whether such payments should be permitted. PBGC estimates that plan sponsors each year

(1)submit notices of termination for 10 plans,

(2)distribute election notices to participants in 5 of those plans, and

(3)submit requests to pay benefits or benefit forms not otherwise permitted for 1 of those plans. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 19.2 hours and $16,363. 2. Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR Part 4203) (OMB Control Number 1212-0023) Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA allow PBGC to permit a multiemployer plan to adopt special rules for determining whether a withdrawal from the plan has occurred, subject to PBGC approval. The regulation specifies the information that a plan that adopts special rules must submit to PBGC about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the plan operates. PBGC uses the information to determine whether the rules are appropriate for the industry in which the plan functions and do not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. PBGC estimates that at most 1 plan sponsor submits a request each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1 hour and $5,600. 3. Variances for Sale of Assets (29 CFR Part 4204) (OMB Control Number 1212-0021) If an employer's covered operations or contribution obligation under a plan ceases, the employer must generally pay withdrawal liability to the plan. Section 4204 of ERISA provides an exception, under certain conditions, where the cessation results from a sale of assets. Among other things, the buyer must furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale contract must provide for secondary liability of the seller. The regulation establishes general variances (rules for avoiding the bond/escrow and sale-contract requirements) and authorizes plans to determine whether the variances apply in particular cases. It also allows buyers and sellers to request individual variances from PBGC. Plans and PBGC use the information to determine whether employers qualify for variances. PBGC estimates that each year, 11 employers submit, and 11 plans respond to, variance requests under the regulation, and 2 employers submit variance requests to PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 2.75 hours and $6,213. 4. Reduction or Waiver of Complete Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR Part 4207) (OMB Control Number 1212-0044) Section 4207 of ERISA allows PBGC to provide for abatement of an employer's complete withdrawal liability, and for plan adoption of alternative abatement rules, where appropriate. Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent. The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved. PBGC estimates that each year, 100 employers submit, and 100 plans respond to, applications for abatement of complete withdrawal liability, and 1 plan sponsor requests approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 25.5 hours and $35,000. 5. Reduction or Waiver of Partial Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR Part 4208) (OMB Control Number 1212-0039) Section 4208 of ERISA provides for abatement, in certain circumstances, of an employer's partial withdrawal liability and authorizes PBGC to issue additional partial withdrawal liability abatement rules. Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent. The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved. PBGC estimates that each year, 1,000 employers submit, and 1,000 plans respond to, applications for abatement of partial withdrawal liability and 1 plan sponsor requests approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 250.5 hours and $350,000. 6. Allocating Unfunded Vested Benefits to Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR Part 4211) (OMB Control Number 1212-0035) Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA requires PBGC to prescribe how plans can, with PBGC approval, change the way they allocate unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability. The regulation prescribes the information that must be submitted to PBGC by a plan seeking such approval. PBGC uses the information to determine how the amendment changes the way the plan allocates unfunded vested benefits and how it will affect the risk of loss to plan participants and PBGC. PBGC estimates that 7 plan sponsors submit approval requests each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 14 hours. 7. Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR Part 4219) (OMB Control Number 1212-0034) Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA requires that PBGC prescribe regulations for the allocation of a plan's total unfunded vested benefits in the event of a “mass withdrawal.” ERISA section 4209(c) deals with an employer's liability for de minimis amounts if the employer withdraws in a “substantial withdrawal.” The reporting requirements in the regulation give employers notice of a mass withdrawal or substantial withdrawal and advise them of their rights and liabilities. They also provide notice to PBGC so that it can monitor the plan, and they help PBGC assess the possible impact of a withdrawal event on participants and the multiemployer plan insurance program. PBGC estimates that there is at most 1 mass withdrawal and 1 substantial withdrawal per year. The plan sponsor of a plan subject to a withdrawal covered by the regulation provides notices of the withdrawal to PBGC and to employers covered by the plan, liability assessments to the employers, and a certification to PBGC that assessments have been made. (For a mass withdrawal, there are 2 assessments and 2 certifications that deal with 2 different types of liability. For a substantial withdrawal, there is 1 assessment and 1 certification (combined with the withdrawal notice to PBGC).) The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 4 hours and $9,095. 8. Procedures for PBGC Approval of Plan Amendments (29 CFR Part 4220) (OMB Control Number 1212-0031) Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan may within certain limits adopt special plan rules regarding when a withdrawal from the plan occurs and how the withdrawing employer's withdrawal liability is determined. Any such special rule is effective only if, within 90 days after receiving notice and a copy of the rule, PBGC either approves or fails to disapprove the rule. The regulation provides rules for requesting PBGC's approval of an amendment. PBGC needs the required information to identify the plan, evaluate the risk of loss, if any, posed by the plan amendment, and determine whether to approve or disapprove the amendment. PBGC estimates that 3 plan sponsors submit approval requests per year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1.5 hours. 9. Mergers and Transfers Between Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR Part 4231) (OMB Control Number 1212-0022) Section 4231(a) and

(b)of ERISA requires plans that are involved in a merger or transfer to give PBGC 120 days' notice of the transaction and provides that if PBGC determines that specified requirements are satisfied, the transaction will be deemed not to be in violation of ERISA section 406(a) or (b)(2) (dealing with prohibited transactions). This regulation sets forth the procedures for giving notice of a merger or transfer under section 4231 and for requesting a determination that a transaction complies with section 4231. PBGC uses information submitted by plan sponsors under the regulation to determine whether mergers and transfers conform to the requirements of ERISA section 4231 and the regulation. PBGC estimates that there are 35 transactions each year for which plan sponsors submit notices and approval requests under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 8.75 hours and $9,756. 10. Notice of Insolvency (29 CFR Part 4245) (OMB Control Number 1212-0033) If the plan sponsor of a plan in reorganization under ERISA section 4241 determines that the plan may become insolvent, ERISA section 4245(e) requires the plan sponsor to give a “notice of insolvency” to PBGC, contributing employers, and plan participants and their unions in accordance with PBGC rules. For each insolvency year under ERISA section 4245(b)(4), ERISA section 4245(e) also requires the plan sponsor to give a “notice of insolvency benefit level” to the same parties. This regulation establishes the procedure for giving these notices. PBGC uses the information submitted to estimate cash needs for financial assistance to troubled plans. Employers and unions use the information to decide whether additional plan contributions will be made to avoid the insolvency and consequent benefit suspensions. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information in personal financial decisions. PBGC estimates that 1 plan sponsor of an ongoing plan gives notices each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1 hour and $4,741. 11. Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR Part 4281) (OMB Control Number 1212-0032) Section 4281 of ERISA provides rules for plans that have terminated by mass withdrawal. Under section 4281, if nonforfeitable benefits exceed plan assets, the plan sponsor must amend the plan to reduce benefits. If the plan nevertheless becomes insolvent, the plan sponsor must suspend certain benefits that cannot be paid. If available resources are inadequate to pay guaranteed benefits, the plan sponsor must request financial assistance from PBGC. The regulation requires a plan sponsor to give notices of benefit reduction, notices of insolvency and annual updates, and notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to participants and beneficiaries and, if necessary, to apply to PBGC for financial assistance. PBGC uses the information it receives to make determinations required by ERISA, to identify and estimate the cash needed for financial assistance to terminated plans, and to verify the appropriateness of financial assistance payments. Plan participants and beneficiaries use the information to make personal financial decisions. PBGC estimates that plan sponsors of terminated plans each year give benefit reduction notices for 2 plans and give notices of insolvency benefit level and annual updates, and submit requests for financial assistance, for 28 plans. Of those 28 plans, PBGC estimates that plan sponsors each year give notices of insolvency for 4 plans. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is one hour and $701,574. Issued in Washington, DC, this 14th day of February, 2008. John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-3410 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Data Collection Available for Public Comment and Recommendations SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

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

(RRB)has evidence that the applicant has ceased railroad employment and relinquished rights to return to the service of a railroad employer. The procedure pertaining to the relinquishment of rights by an annuity applicant is prescribed in 20 CFR 216.24. Under Section 2(f)(6) of the RRA, earnings deductions are required each month an annuitant works in certain nonrailroad employment termed Last Pre-Retirement Non-Railroad Employment. Normally, the employee, spouse, or divorced spouse relinquish rights and certify that employment has ended as part of the annuity application process. However, this is not always the case. In limited circumstances, the RRB utilizes Form G-88, *Certification of Termination of Service and Relinquishment of Rights* , to obtain an applicant's report of termination of employment and relinquishment of rights. One response is required of each respondent. Responses are required to obtain or retain benefits. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-88. Estimate of Annual Respondent Burden The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows: Form No. Annual responses Time

(min)Burden

(hrs)G-88 3,600 6 360 *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at

(312)751-3363 or send an e-mail request to *Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or send an e-mail to *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV* . Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3468 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Data Collection Available for Public Comment and Recommendations SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of Information Collection Availability for Work: OMB 3220-0164. Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment benefits are not payable for any day for which the claimant is not available for work. Under Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)regulation 20 CFR 327.5, “available for work” is defined as being willing and ready for work. This section further provides that a person is “willing” to work if that person is willing to accept and perform for hire such work as is reasonably appropriate to his or her employment circumstances. The section also provides that a claimant is “ready” for work if he or she:

(1)is in a position to receive notice of work and is willing to accept and perform such work, and

(2)is prepared to be present with the customary equipment at the location of such work within the time usually allotted. Under RRB regulation 20 CFR 327.15, a claimant may be requested at any time to show, as evidence of willingness to work, that he or she is making reasonable efforts to obtain work. In order to determine whether a claimant is:

(a)available for work, and b) willing to work, the RRB utilizes Forms UI-38 and UI-38s to obtain information from the claimant and Form ID-8k from his union representative. One response is completed by each respondent. The RRB proposes minor non-burden impacting editorial changes to Form(s) UI-38, UI-38s and ID-8k. Estimate of Annual Respondent Burden The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows: Form No. Annual responses Time

(min)Burden

(hrs)UI-38s: In person 250 6 25 By mail 500 10 83 UI-38 3,750 11.5 719 ID-8k 3,100 5 258 Total 7,600 1,085 *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at

(RRB)will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of Information Collection: Application for Reimbursement for Hospital Insurance Services in Canada; OMB 3220-0086. Under section 7(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad retirement system. Payments are provided under section 7(d)4) of the RRA for medical services furnished in Canada to the same extent as for those furnished in the United States. However, payments for the services furnished in Canada are made from the Railroad Retirement Account rather than from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, with the payments limited to the amount by which insurance benefits under Medicare exceed the amounts payable under Canadian Provincial plans. Form AA-104, Application for Canadian Hospital Benefits Under Medicare—Part A, is provided by the RRB for use in claiming benefits for covered hospital services received in Canada. The form obtains information needed to determine eligibility for, and the amount of any reimbursement due the applicant. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. The RRB proposes non-burden impacting formatting and editorial changes to Form AA-104. *Number of respondents:* 35 *Estimated Completion Time:* 10 minutes *Estimated annual burden hours:* 6 *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at

(312)751-3363 or send an e-mail request to *Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV.* Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or send an e-mail to *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV.* Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3475 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57340; File No. SR-BSE-2007-54] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Relating to the Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations February 15, 2008. On December 20, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) rules related to Contrary Exercise Advice violations. On January 7, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On January 10, 2008, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 and simultaneously filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008. 5 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 revised the proposed rule text to clarify how fines for third and subsequent offenses are imposed. 4 Amendment No. 2 retained the clarification (submitted in Amendment No. 1) regarding how fines for third and subsequent offenses are imposed and corrected a page numbering error. Therefore, Amendment No. 2 was technical in nature and therefore does not need to be published for comment. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57108 (January 7, 2008), 73 FR 2294. The Exchange proposes to increase and strengthen the sanctions imposed under its Minor Rule Violation Plan (“MRVP”) on any member who fails to submit to the Exchange in a timely manner pursuant to BOX Rule Chapter X, Section 2(f), “Contrary Exercise Advice Violations” or exercise instructions relating to the exercise or nonexercise of a noncash-settled equity option. The Exchange believes that increasing the fine levels specified with respect to both individual members and member organizations and lengthening the surveillance period from a 12-month period to a rolling 24-month period will serve as an effective deterrent to such violative conduct. 6 6 In addition, as a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group, the Exchange, as well as certain other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), executed and filed on October 29, 2007 with the Commission, a final version of an Agreement pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act (the “17d-2 Agreement”). As set forth in the 17d-2 Agreement, the SROs have agreed that their respective rules concerning the filing of Expiring Exercise Declarations, also referred to as Contrary Exercise Advices, are common rules. As a result, the proposal to amend the MRVP will result in further consistency in sanctions among the SROs that are signatories to the 17d-2 Agreement concerning Contrary Exercise Advice violations. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to facilitate transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposal to increase the fine levels imposed on individuals and member organizations who fail to submit Advice Cancel or exercise instructions in a timely manner is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act, 9 which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act, 10 which governs minor rule violation plans. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6). 10 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2). In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with the Exchange's rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRVP. The Commission believes that the violation of any SRO rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission expects that the Exchange would continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRVP or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 11 and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2007-54), as modified by Amendment No. 2, e, and hereby is, approved and declared effective. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 12 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3444 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57352; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Requesting Permanent Approval of Two Pilot Programs That Increase Position and Exercise Limits February 19, 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 6, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on February 13, 2008. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange requests permanent approval of two pilot programs that increase position and exercise limits for equity options. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11, *Position Limits,* and Rule 4.12, *Exercise Limits,* to permanently establish the increased limits of the two pilot programs. The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.org/legal.* 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19-4. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, 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 III 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to request permanent approval of two pilot programs that increase position and exercise limits for equity options. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11, *Position Limits,* and Rule 4.12, *Exercise Limits,* to permanently establish the increased limits of the two pilot programs. Rule 4.11 subjects equity options to one of five different position limits depending on the trading volume and outstanding shares of the underlying security. Rule 4.12 establishes exercise limits for equity options at the same levels as the applicable position limits. 3 3 Rule 4.12 states, “no member shall exercise, for any account in which it has an interest or for the account of any customer, a long position in any option contract where such member or customer, acting alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, * * * has or will have exercised within any five consecutive business days aggregate long positions in any class of options dealth in on the Exchange in excess” of the established limits set by the Exchange. The first pilot program, the “Rule 4.11 Pilot Program,” commenced on February 23, 2005, and provides for an increase to the standard (or “non-pilot”) position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on the PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”). 4 Specifically, the Rule 4.11 Pilot Program increases the applicable position and exercise limits for equity options and QQQQ options as follows: 4 The Rule 4.11 Pilot Program was approved by the Commission on February 23, 2005. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51244 (February 23, 2005), 70 FR 10010 (March 1, 2005) (order approving SR-CBOE-2003-30, as amended) (“Pilot Program Order”). The Rule 4.11 Pilot Program has been extended 5 times for 6 month periods by the Commission, and expires on March 1, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52262 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48995 (August 22, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-61), Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53348 (February 22, 2006), 71 FR 10574 (March 1, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-11), Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54336 (August 18, 2006), 71 FR 50952 (August 28, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-69), Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55266 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7698 (February 16, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-12), and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56266 (August 15, 2007), 72 FR 47094 (August 22, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-97). In connection with the March 21, 2007 transfer of sponsorship of the Nasdaq-100 Trust, the name of the trust was changed to the “PowerShares QQQ Trust.” *See* QQQQ prospectus available at *http://www.powershares.com/pdf/P-QQQ-PRO-1.pdf.* Standard equity option contract limit Pilot Program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 31,500 75,000 60,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Standard QQQQ option contract limit Pilot Program QQQQ option contract limit 5 300,000 900,000 The 5 second pilot program, the “iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (‘IWM’) Option Pilot Program,” commenced on January 22, 2007, and increases the position and exercise limits for IWM options from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts. 6 5 The standard position and exercise limits for QQQQ options are 300,000 contracts. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45309 (January 18, 2002), 67 FR 3757 (January 25, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2001-44). The standard position and exercise limits for options on DIA and SPY are also 300,000 contracts. *See* Securities Exchange Act Releases Nos. 47346 (February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8316 (February 20, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-26), 51041 (January 14, 2005), 70 FR 3408 (January 24, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-06). 6 The IWM Option Pilot Program doubles the position and exercise limits for IWM options under the Rule 4.11 Pilot Program. Absent both of these pilot programs, the standard position and exercise limit for IWM options is 75,000 option contracts. The proposal that established the IWM Option Pilot Program was designated by the Commission to be effective and operative upon filing. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55176 (January 25, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-08). The IWM Option Pilot Program has been extended twice by the Commission and expires on March 1, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55926 (June 20, 2007), 72 FR 35275 (June 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-61); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57141, 73 FR 3496 (January 18, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-147). a. Standard Position and Exercise Limits The standard position limits were last increased nine years ago, on December 31, 1998. 7 Since that time, there has been a steady increase in the number of accounts that:

(a)Approach the position limit;

(b)exceed the position limits; and

(c)are granted an exemption to the applicable position limit. To illustrate CBOE's position on this matter, CBOE's Division of Market Regulation conducted a review of four incident categories involving position limits:

(i)Violations;

(ii)accounts near 10% of pilots' position limits;

(iii)account positions and pilots' limits vs. standard limits; and

(iv)exemptions granted. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-25).

(i)Violations During the period of January 1, 2007 through January 1, 2008, when both pilot programs were in effect, the Exchange opened a total of 19 reviews regarding equity option position and exercise limits at the pilot levels, which led to findings of 7 violations. To the best of the staff's knowledge, all of these violations were deemed inadvertent—due primarily to miscounting, technical problems, or a misinterpretation of position limit calculation methodologies. None of these violations were deemed to be a result of manipulative activities.

(ii)Accounts Near 10% of Pilots' Position Limits The Exchange utilizes a heightened surveillance technique to identify different types of accounts that are within 10% of the pilot position limit tiers. As of December 20, 2007, Exchange staff identified 36 accounts that were within 10% of the pilot position limit tiers. As illustrated below, the majority of the accounts were firm/market-maker accounts involving the 250,000 contract pilot position limit tier. The Exchange believes that members and large customers ( *e.g.* , mutual funds, hedge funds, and pension funds) are utilizing the higher limits in their portfolios and transactions with the confidence that they will not exceed the limits. Pilot position limit tier LOPR 8 10% Firm/market-maker 10% LOPR 10% in concert LOPR/aggregated open interest 10% 9 25,000 0 0 0 1 50,000 0 0 0 0 75,000 1 0 0 0 250,000 6 10 0 4 300,000 1 7 1 1 500,000 0 1 0 0 900,000 0 3 0 0 Total Accts 8 21 1 6

(iii)Account Positions and Pilots' Limits vs. Standard Limits Exchange staff examined approximately 160 member/firm accounts and approximately 754 customer accounts, as of December 2007, and compared the current contract quantities to:

(a)the Rule 4.11 and IWM Option Pilot Programs' position limits; and

(b)the standard equity position limits. Without the increased position limits provided for by the Rule 4.11 and IWM Option Pilot Programs, virtually all of the customer accounts would be in violation of the standard position limits. The same, however, cannot be said of the member/firm accounts, as those accounts may utilize exemptions not available to customers. As a result, a significant amount of customers would be disadvantaged if the pilot programs' position limits levels are not made permanent. 8 Large Options Position Report (“LOPR”). 9 The LOPR/Aggregated Open Interest 10% report aggregates positions of affiliated accounts ( *i.e.* , those that clear in the customer range with those that clear in the firm proprietary and/or market-maker range), and reflects same side of the market positions that are within 10% of the applicable pilot position limit tiers.

(iv)Exemptions Exchange staff examined position limit exemptions to the pilot position limit tiers as of December 20, 2007, and observed that among the various options exchanges, 53 exemptions to positions limits under the pilot position limit tiers were granted in equity option classes, the majority of which occurred in the 250,000 and 300,000 pilot tier levels. 10 In addition, seven exemptions to the position limit pilot tier of 500,000 contracts were granted in the IWM options class, which has a standard position limit of 75,000 contracts. 10 As to the 53 exemptions, the majority were granted prior to December 2007 and subsequently renewed. b. Growth in Options Market Since the last position limit increase, there has been an exponential increase in the overall volume of exchange traded options. The below chart demonstrates the growth in options trading industry-wide between 1999 and 2007. Year Annual industry options trading volume 1999 508,000,000 contracts. 2000 727,000,000 contracts. 2001 782,000,000 contracts. 2002 780,000,000 contracts. 2003 908,000,000 contracts. 2004 1,182,000,000 contracts. 2005 1,504,000,000 contracts. 2006 2,028,000,000 contracts. 2007 2,863,000,000 contracts. Part of this volume is attributable to a corresponding increase in the number of overall market participants. This growth in market participants has in turn brought about additional depth and increased liquidity in exchange traded options. c. Manipulation Since the last position limit increase, and throughout the duration of the two pilot programs, the Exchange has not encountered any regulatory issues regarding the applicable position limits, and states there is a lack of evidence of market manipulation schemes, which justifies the proposed permanent approval of the Rule 4.11 and IWM Option Pilot Programs. The Exchange believes that position and exercise limits, at the non-pilot levels, no longer serve their stated purpose. The Commission has previously stated: Since the inception of standardized options trading, the options exchanges have had rules imposing limits on the aggregate number of options contracts that a member or customer could hold or exercise. These rules are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options position. In particular, position and exercise limits are designed to minimize the potential for mini-manipulations and for corners or squeezes of the underlying market. In addition, such limits serve to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options market itself, especially in illiquid options classes. 11 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39489 (December 24, 1997), 63 FR 276 (January 5, 1998) (SR-CBOE-97-11). As the anniversary of listed options trading approaches its 35th year, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at CBOE, at other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight inspections of CBOE's regulatory programs by the Commission have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted relating to position and exercise limits. These procedures include daily monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activities in both options and underlying stocks and Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”). Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D and 13G. Options positions are part of any reportable positions, and thus cannot be legally hidden. The Exchange also requires that member organizations file reports with the Exchange for any customer who holds aggregate long or short positions on the same side of the market of 200 or more option contracts of any single class for the previous day. 12 In addition, the Exchange requires that firms and market-makers report their positions, and the Exchange has access, via The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), to daily data with respect to these options positions. Finally, in granting firms' requests for exemptions or disaggregation within firm positions, CBOE and the other options markets require enhanced reporting-either directly to the granting exchange or through LOPR, as applicable. In sum, these reporting requirements will continue to serve as an important part of the Exchange's surveillance efforts. 12 *See* Rule 4.13(a). Accordingly, the Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures (which have been significantly enhanced since the last position limit increase) and reporting procedures, in conjunction with the financial requirements and risk management review procedures already in place at the clearing firms and the OCC, will serve to adequately address any concerns the Commission may have with respect to account(s) engaging in any manipulative schemes or assuming too high a level of risk exposure. d. Financial Requirements The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in an equity option. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by one account by increasing margin and/or capital that a member must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer. The Exchange also notes that it has the authority under Rule 12.3(h) and Rule 12.10 to impose higher margin requirements upon a member or member organization when the Exchange determines that higher requirements are required. Also, the Commission's net capital rule imposes a capital charge on members to the extent any margin deficiency results from the higher margin requirement. 13 13 *See* 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. e. Inability To Compete; Retreat to OTC Market The Exchange has no reason to believe that the current trading volume in equity options will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the non-pilot position and exercise limits are restrictive, and returning to those limits will hamper fair and effective competition between the listed options markets and the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. In fact, the Commission highlighted competition with the OTC markets as a reason for increasing the standard position and exercise limits in 1998. 14 Specifically, the Commission stated: 14 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-25). The increase in position and exercise limits for standardized equity options should allow the Exchanges to better compete with the growing OTC market in customized equity options, thereby encouraging fair competition among brokers and exchange markets. 15 15 *Id* . In addition, the Exchange believes that without permanently establishing the position and exercise limits set forth in the pilot programs, large customers, such as mutual funds, hedge funds and pension funds, will find the standard equity position limits an impediment to their business and investment objectives. As such, market participants may find the less-transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance. f. No Adverse Consequences From Past Increases Equity option position limits have been gradually expanded from 1,000 contracts in 1973 to the current level of 75,000 contracts for the largest and most actively traded equity options. To date, there have been no adverse affects on the markets as a result of these past increases in the limits for equity option contracts. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements provided under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 16 which state in part that the rules of an exchange must be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 16 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 neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CBOE-2008-07 and should be submitted on or before March 17, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 17 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 in that it is 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. 17 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the proposal to permanently establish the increased position and exercise limits of the Rule 4.11 Pilot Program and the IWM Option Pilot Program is consistent with the Act. As the Commission previously has noted, rules regarding position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options position. In particular, position and exercise limits are designed to minimize the potential for mini-manipulations and for corners or squeezes of the underlying market. In addition, such limits serve to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options market itself, especially in illiquid options classes. 19 19 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39489, *supra* note 11. The Exchange has represented that, over the recent history of steadily increasing position and exercise limits, it has detected no adverse consequences and has received no complaints relating to their position and exercise limits or the Rule 4.11 and IWM Option Pilot Programs. According to the Exchange, it has not encountered any regulatory issues regarding the position limits subject to the two pilot programs or any instances of manipulation. Moreover, the Exchange pointed to the very significant increase in the overall volume of exchange-traded options since 1999. This growth in trading volume and number of market participants has brought additional depth and increased liquidity in exchange-traded options and thereby has lessened concerns about the potential for disruptions in the options markets that may occur through increased position and exercise limits. The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to monitor for violations of the position and exercise limits with the purpose of discovering and sanctioning fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, and to reassess the position and exercise limits, if and when appropriate, in light of its findings. Finally, the Commission notes that in approving the proposed rule change, it has relied upon the Exchange's representation that its surveillance procedures and reporting requirements, discussed above, will continue to monitor for manipulative schemes or too high a level of risk exposure. In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes that the current position and exercise limits under the two pilot programs represent an appropriate balance between the Exchange's desire to accommodate market participants by offering higher position and exercise limits, particularly in light of the marked increase in the volume of exchange-traded options in recent years, and the need to provide checks on potential market manipulation, imprudent assumption of risk ( *e.g.* , entering into large unhedged positions), and other potential trading abuses. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of filing in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the Rule 4.11 Pilot Program and the IWM Option Pilot Program both expire on March 1, 2008. The Commission believes accelerated approval of the proposed rule change is appropriate in order to maintain uninterrupted position and exercise limit levels. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 20 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-07), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3432 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57347; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-100] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Nasdaq Rule 7033 To Modify the Fees Charged for the Mutual Fund Quotation Service and To Correct Certain Errors in the Rule Manual February 19, 2008. On December 19, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to modify the fees charged for the Mutual Fund Quotation Service and to correct certain errors in the rule manual. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57105 (January 4, 2008), 73 FR 2296. The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 4 and, in particular, Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 5 which requires that Nasdaq's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 7033 to include subsection (e), which provides for the assessment of a monthly fee on distributors of the Mutual Fund Quotation Service. When Nasdaq began operating as a national securities exchange in 2006, it adopted as its own rules numerous rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”). Due to the omission of this subsection from the NASD manual, however, Nasdaq failed to include this subsection in its manual. The Commission believes that it is appropriate for Nasdaq to amend Rule 7033 to include subsection (e), as this corrects an omission in Nasdaq's rules. Nasdaq requested that the change be approved retroactive to August 1, 2006, the date Nasdaq began operating as an exchange. Nasdaq also proposes to modify the fees for the News Media and Supplemental Lists to reflect the similarity of effort in providing these services, effective retroactively to January 1, 2008. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to modify the prices charged for the News Media and Supplemental Lists to reflect the increased services provided by Nasdaq in connection with the Supplemental List, and a uniformity of effort in providing both services. 4 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2007-100) be, and it hereby is, approved. 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3430 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57348; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-010] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Trade Units of the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP and the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges February 19, 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 5, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) 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. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves it on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to trade, pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), units (“Units”) of the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USOF”) and the United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (“USGF”) (each, a “Partnership,” and collectively “Partnerships”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the Exchange's Web site ( *http://nasdaq.complinet.com* ), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III 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 Nasdaq proposes to trade pursuant to UTP the Units, each of which represents ownership of a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of either USOF or USGF. Each Partnership is a commodity pool that will issue Units that may be purchased and sold on the Exchange. The Commission has approved the original listing and trading of the Units on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 3 The net assets of each of USOF and USGF consist of investments in futures contracts based on crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, natural gas, and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE Futures”), or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (collectively, “Futures Contracts”). In the case of USOF, the predominant investments are expected to be based on, or related to, crude oil. For the USGF, the predominant investments are expected to be based on, or related to, natural gas. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56831 (November 21, 2007), 72 FR 67612 (November 29, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-98) (“Amex Order”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56719 (October 29, 2007), 72 FR 62277 (November 2, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-98) (“Amex Notice”). USOF may also invest in other crude-oil-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for gasoline, and over-the-counter (“OTC”) contracts that are based on the price of crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, natural gas, other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts, and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Crude Oil-Related Investments”). Futures Contracts and Other Crude Oil-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Crude Oil Interests.” Similarly, the USGF may also invest in other natural-gas-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for natural gas, and OTC contracts based on the price of natural gas, crude oil, and other petroleum-based fuels, Futures Contracts, and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Natural Gas-Related Investments”). Futures Contracts and Other Natural Gas-Related Investments collectively are referred to as “Natural Gas Interests.” Each of USOF and USGF will invest in Crude Oil Interests and Natural Gas Interests, respectively, to the fullest extent possible without being leveraged or unable to satisfy its current or potential margin or collateral obligations. In pursuing this objective, the primary focus of USOF's and USGF's investment manager, Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC (“Victoria Bay” or “General Partner”), is the investment in Futures Contracts and the management of its investments in short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”) and cash and cash equivalents (collectively, “Cash”) for margining purposes and as collateral. The investment objective of USOF is for changes in percentage terms of a Unit's net asset value (“NAV”) to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the average of the prices of 12 crude oil futures contracts traded on NYMEX (the “Oil Benchmark Futures Contracts”), less the USOF's expenses. 4 4 The Oil Benchmark Futures Contracts consist of the near-month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 months, for a total of 12 consecutive months' contracts, except when the near-month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contracts that are the next-month contract to expire and the contracts for the 11 consecutive months following that contract. The average price is determined by summing up the 12 individual monthly prices and dividing them by 12, and then comparing that result to the prior day's average price determined in the same fashion. The composition of the Oil Benchmark Futures Contracts will be changed or “rolled” over a one-day period by selling the near-month contract and buying the contract, which at that time is the 13-month contract. The investment objective of USGF is for changes in percentage terms of a Unit's NAV to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the price of natural gas delivered at Henry Hub, Louisiana, as measured by the changes in the average of the prices of 12 futures contracts on natural gas traded on NYMEX (the “Natural Gas Benchmark Futures Contracts”), less the 12-Month Natural Gas Fund's expenses. 5 With respect to both funds, when calculating the daily movement of the average price of the relevant 12 futures contracts, each contract month will be equally weighted. 5 The Natural Gas Benchmark Futures Contracts consist of the near-month contract to expire and the contracts for the following 11 months, for a total of 12 consecutive months' contracts, except when the near-month contract is within two weeks of expiration, in which case it will be measured by the futures contracts that are the next-month contract to expire and the contracts for the 11 consecutive months following that contract. The average price is determined by summing up the 12 individual monthly prices and dividing them by 12, and then comparing that result to the prior day's average price determined in the same fashion. The composition of the Natural Gas Benchmark Futures Contract will be changed or “rolled” over a one-day period by selling the near-month contract and buying the contract which at that time is the 13-month contract on the same day. Information regarding the Partnerships and the General Partner, as well as detailed descriptions of the manner in which the Units will be offered and sold, and the investment strategy of USOF and USGF, are included in their respective registration statements regarding the offering of the Units filed with the Commission under the Securities Act of 1933. 6 6 *See* USOF's Form S-1 filed with the Commission on July 5, 2007, as amended (File No. 333-144348) and USGF's S-1 filed with the Commission on July 6, 2007 (File No. 333-144409). As set forth in the Amex Proposal, the daily settlement prices for the NYMEX-traded Futures Contracts are publicly available on the NYMEX Web site at *http://www.nymex.com.* In addition, various market data vendors and news publications publish futures prices and related data. Quote and last-sale information for the Futures Contracts are widely disseminated through a variety of market data vendors worldwide, including Bloomberg and Reuters. In addition, real-time futures data is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The NYMEX also provides delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on its Web site. The specific contract specifications for the Futures Contracts are also available on the NYMEX Web site and the ICE Futures Web site at *http://www.icefutures.com.* The Web site for Amex at *http://www.amex.com* , which is publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information:

(1)The prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price;

(2)the midpoint of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is calculated (“Bid-Ask price”); 7

(3)the premium or discount of such price against such NAV;

(4)data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters;

(5)the prospectus and the most recent periodic reports filed with the SEC or required by the CFTC; and

(6)other applicable quantitative information. 7 The Bid-Ask Price of Units is determined using the highest bid and lowest offer as of the time of calculation of the NAV. The total portfolio composition of each Partnership will be disclosed, each business day that the Amex is open for trading, on their respective Web sites at *http://www.unitedstates12monthoi1fund.com* and *http://www.unitedstates12monthnaturalgasfund.com.* USOF's Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings will be made daily and will include, as applicable, the name and value of each Crude Oil Interest, the specific types of Crude Oil Interests and characteristics of such Crude Oil Interests, Treasuries, and amount of cash and cash equivalents held in the portfolio of the USOF. The USGF's Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings will be made daily and will include, as applicable, the name and value of each Natural Gas Interest, the specific types of Natural Gas Interests and characteristics of such Natural Gas Interests, Treasuries, and amount of cash and cash equivalents held in the portfolio of USGF. The public Web site disclosure of the portfolio composition of each of USOF and USGF will coincide with the disclosure by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“Administrator”) on each business day of the NAV for the Units and the Basket Amount (for orders placed during the day) for each Partnership. Therefore, the same portfolio information will be provided on the public Web site for each Partnership as well as in the facsimile or e-mail to Authorized Purchasers containing the NAV and Basket Amount (“Daily Dissemination”). The format of the public Web site disclosure and the Daily Dissemination will differ because the public Web site will list all portfolio holdings while the Daily Dissemination will provide the portfolio holdings in a format appropriate for Authorized Purchasers, *i.e.* , the exact components of a Creation Unit. Each Partnership's NAV will be calculated and disseminated daily. 8 According to the Amex Proposal, the Amex also intends to disseminate for each Partnership on a daily basis by means of CTA/CQ High Speed Lines information with respect to the Indicative Partnership Value (as discussed below), the recent NAV, the number of Units outstanding, the Basket Amount, and the Deposit Amount. The Amex will also make available on its Web site daily trading volume, closing prices, and the NAV. The closing price and settlement prices of the Futures Contracts held by each Partnership are also readily available from the NYMEX, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. 8 According to the Amex Proposal, the Amex will obtain a representation from each Partnership that its NAV per Unit will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. To provide updated information relating to each Partnership for use by investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem the Units, the Amex will disseminate through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an updated Indicative Partnership Value (“Indicative Partnership Value”), according to the Amex Proposal. The Indicative Partnership Value for each Partnership will be disseminated on a per-Unit basis at least every 15 seconds from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET. The Indicative Partnership Value will be calculated based on the Treasuries and cash required for creations and redemptions ( *i.e.* , NAV per Unit × 100,000) adjusted to reflect the price changes of the relevant Benchmark Futures Contract. The Indicative Partnership Value is based on open-outcry trading of the relevant Benchmark Futures Contracts on NYMEX. Open-outcry trading on the NYMEX closes daily at 2:30 p.m. ET while NYMEX's energy futures contracts are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's CME Globex electronic trading platform on a 24 hour basis. 9 After the close of open outcry on NYMEX at 2:30 p.m. ET, the Indicative Partnership Value will reflect changes to the relevant Benchmark Futures Contracts as provided for through Globex. The value of the relevant Benchmark Futures Contracts will be available on a 15-second delayed basis from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET. 9 CME Globex® (“Globex”) is an open-access marketplace that operates virtually 24 hours each trading day. Electronic trading on Globex is conducted from 6 p.m. ET Sunday through 5:15 p.m. ET Friday each week. There is a 45-minute break each day between 5:15 p.m. ET and 6 p.m. ET. Trading Halts Nasdaq will halt trading in the Units under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121. The conditions for a halt include a regulatory halt by the listing market. UTP trading in the Units will also be governed by provisions of Nasdaq Rule 4120(b) relating to temporary interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Indicative Partnership Value. Additionally, Nasdaq may cease trading the Units if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist which, in the opinion of Nasdaq, make further dealings on Nasdaq detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. Nasdaq will also follow any procedures with respect to trading halts as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 4120(c). Finally, Nasdaq will stop trading the Units if the listing market delists them. Trading Rules Nasdaq deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Units 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. ET. Surveillance Nasdaq believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to address any concerns about the trading of the Units on Nasdaq. Trading of the Units through Nasdaq will be subject to FINRA's surveillance procedures for equity securities in general and ETFs in particular. 10 The Exchange may obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges that are members or affiliates of the ISG. 11 10 FINRA surveils trading on Nasdaq pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. Nasdaq is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. 11 For a list of the current members and affiliate members of ISG, *see http://www.isgportal.com.* Information Circular Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Units. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following:

(1)The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Units in Baskets (and that Units are not individually redeemable);

(2)Nasdaq Rule 2310, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Units to customers;

(3)how information regarding the Indicative Partnership Value is disseminated;

(4)the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Units prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and

(5)trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, or interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Circular will reference that each Partnership is subject to various fees and expenses described in the relevant registration statement. The Information Circular will also reference the fact that there is no regulated source of last-sale information regarding physical commodities; that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the trading of crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, or other petroleum-based fuels; and that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of crude-oil-based and natural-gas-based futures contracts and related options. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Units of each Partnership and that the NAV for the Units will be calculated after 4 p.m. ET each trading day. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. Specifically, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 12 requirements that an exchange have rules designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act 13 because it deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 13 17 CFR 240.12f-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 neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. 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-NASDAQ-2008-010 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-NASDAQ-2008-010. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-010 and should be submitted on or before March 17, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 14 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 15 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit investors by increasing competition among markets that trade the Units. 14 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act, 16 which permits an exchange to trade, pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another exchange. 17 The Commission notes that it previously approved the listing and trading of the Units on Amex. 18 The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act, 19 which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets this requirement because it deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. 16 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (f). 17 Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (a), generally prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national securities exchange unless the security is registered on that exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an exchange “extends UTP.” When an exchange extends UTP to a security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so listed and registered. 18 *See supra* note 4. 19 17 CFR 240.12f-5. The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 20 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Quotations for and last-sale information regarding the Units are disseminated through the facilities of the CTA and the Consolidated Quotation System. In addition, Amex will calculate and disseminate the Indicative Partnership Value per Unit for each Partnership through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association at least every 15 seconds throughout the Amex trading hours for the Units. Amex will also make available on its Web site daily trading volume, the closing prices, and the NAV. Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings for both Funds will be made daily. Finally, quotations and last-sale information regarding the Futures Contracts are widely disseminated through a variety of market data vendors worldwide, including Bloomberg and Reuters. 20 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). The Commission also believes that the proposal appears reasonably designed to preclude trading of the Units if transparency is impaired or there is unfair dissemination of the NAV. Trading in the Units will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 4120(b), which provides that, if the listing market halts trading when the IIV or value of the underlying index is not being calculated or disseminated, the Exchange also would halt trading. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Units of a Partnership if it learns that the listing market halts trading because the NAV is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following additional representations: 1. The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Units in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. 2. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange would inform its members in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Units. 3. The Information Bulletin also would discuss the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Units prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction. This approval order is based on the Exchange's representations. The Commission notes that, if the Units should be delisted by the listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade the Units pursuant to this order. The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted above, the Commission previously found that the listing and trading of the Shares on Amex is consistent with the Act. The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit this finding or would preclude the trading of the Units on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for the Units. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 21 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-010) be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3431 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57349; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Opta Exchange-Traded Notes Due 2038 February 19, 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 19, 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 240.196-4. 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 list and trade the Opta Exchange-Traded Notes due 2038 (“Notes”). The Notes are linked to the S&P Listed Private Equity Index® Net Return (U.S. dollar) (“Index”). 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 proposes to list and trade the Notes, which are linked to the Index, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). 5 The Notes are senior unsecured debt obligations of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman”). The Index is comprised of stocks of the 30 leading listed private equity companies that meet certain size, liquidity, exposure, and activity requirements (each an “Index Component” and, collectively, the “Index Components”). The Index is designed to provide tradable exposure to the leading publicly listed companies in the private equity sector. The Index includes North American, European, and Asia-Pacific region private equity stocks that are trading on developed market exchanges. 5 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) sets forth the Exchange's generic listing standards for, among others, Equity Index-Linked Securities, which are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes of equity securities. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). The Exchange submits this proposed rule change because the Index does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I) applicable to the listing of Equity Index-Linked Securities. 6 The Index meets all such requirements, except for those set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii). 7 The Exchange represents that:

(1)Except for NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii), the Notes currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6);

(2)the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(6) shall apply to the Notes; and

(3)Lehman is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act 8 ; for the initial and continued listing of the Notes. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Notes will comply with all other requirements applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information ( *e.g.* , the Index value and intraday indicative value), Exchange rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and Information Bulletin to ETP Holders, as set forth in prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules, and amendments thereto, applicable to the listing and trading of Index-Linked Securities, generally, and Equity Index-Linked Securities, in particular. 9 6 The generic listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I) permit the listing and trading of Equity Index-Linked Securities pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act (17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)). Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1), if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. 7 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii) provides that each component security of the underlying index must have trading volume in each of the last six months of not less than 1,000,000 shares per month, except that for each of the lowest dollar-weighted component securities in the index that, in the aggregate, account for no more than 10% of the dollar weight of the index, the trading volume must be at least 500,000 shares per month in each of the last six months. The Exchange represents that, GIMV NV, a component security which represented 1.4% of the dollar weight of the Index as of January 31, 2008, had a trading volume of 461,498 shares in September 2007, which is below the 500,000 shares requirement. 8 17 CFR 240.10A-3. 9 *See,* *e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56637 (October 10, 2007), 72 FR 58704 (October 16, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-92) (approving conforming amendments to the generic listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities); 57132 (January 11, 2008), 73 FR 3300 (January 17, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-125) (approving amendments to the continued listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities); 56838 (November 26, 2007), 72 FR 67774 (November 30, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-118) (approving amendments relating to indexes underlying Equity Index-Linked Securities); and 56879 (December 3, 2007), 72 FR 69271 (December 7, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-110) (approving amendments to the initial listing and trading standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities). The Exchange states that detailed descriptions of the Notes, the Index (including the methodology used to determine the composition of the Index), fees, redemption procedures and payment at redemption, payment at maturity, taxes, and risk factors relating to the Notes will be available in the Registration Statement 10 or on the Web site for the Notes *(http://www.optaetn.com)* , as applicable. 10 *See* Pricing Supplement to Registration Statement filed by Lehman on February 14, 2008 (File No. 333-134553). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 12 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. The Exchange believes that it has developed adequate trading rules, procedures, surveillance programs, and listing standards for the listing and trading of the Notes, which promote investor protection and the public interest. The Exchange notes that the Notes will be subject to all applicable requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), with the single exception as noted above. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 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 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 14 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 14 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 has 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 so that the Exchange can list and trade the Notes immediately. The Exchange states that the proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest and does not impose any significant burden on competition. The Exchange further believes that the proposal is non-controversial because, although the Index fails to meet the requirements set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii) by a small amount, the Notes currently satisfy all of the other applicable generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) and all other requirements applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities, as set forth in prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules, including amendments thereto, relating to the listing and trading of Index-Linked Securities, generally, and Equity Index-Linked Securities, in particular. The Exchange notes that it has developed adequate trading rules, procedures, surveillance programs, and listing standards for the listing and trading of the Notes. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 15 Given that the Notes comply with all of NYSE Arca's generic listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities (except for narrowly missing the requirement of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii)), the listing and trading of the Notes by NYSE Arca does not appear to present any novel or significant regulatory issues or impose any significant burden on competition. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. 15 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). 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-2008-22 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-2008-22. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-2008-22 and should be submitted on or before March 17, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3465 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Public Law 104-13; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Mark R. Winter, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801;

(423)751-6004. Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than April 25, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Type of Request:* Regular Submission. *Title of Information Collection:* TVA Valley Relations Stakeholder Survey. *Frequency of Use:* On occasion. *Small Business or Organizations Affected:* Yes. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 600. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 100. *Estimated Average Burden Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Need for and Use of Information:* This information collection will obtain feedback from key stakeholders. The information collected will help TVA evaluate its performance and identify areas of effectiveness and opportunities for future improvement. Steven A. Anderson, Senior Manager, IT Planning & Governance Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-3427 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Meeting of the TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council

(RRSC)will hold a meeting on March 13 and March 14, 2008, to obtain views and advice on the topic of TVA's Draft Environmental Policy & Framework and TVA's Natural Resources Management Strategy. The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural resource stewardship activities. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, (FACA). The meeting agenda includes the following:

(1)TVA Updates.

(2)TVA's Draft Environmental Policy & Framework: Land & Water Stewardship Issues.

(3)External Perspectives on Land & Water Stewardship Activities.

(4)TVA Natural Resources Management Strategy.

(5)Drought Conditions Updates.

(6)Bear Creek Dam Update.

(7)Public Comments.

(8)Council Discussion and Advice. The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session. The public comment session will be held at 9:30 a.m., EDT, on Friday, March 14. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 9 a.m., EDT, on March 14 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 13, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EDT, and on Friday, March 14, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., EDT. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium of the TVA Headquarters at 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902,

(865)632-6113. Dated: February 19, 2008. Peyton T. Hairston, Jr., Senior Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & Diversity, Tennessee Valley Authority. [FR Doc. 08-799 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

CFR