The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:

On January 22, 2007, the Commission published a notice of meeting pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b. This notice provides the correct time of the meeting.

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned committee meeting.

In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Sections 1921 through 1935 of the Public Health Service Act (U.S.C. 300x-21 to 300x-35) provide for annual allotments to assist States to plan, carry out and evaluate activities to prevent and treat substance abuse and for related activities. Under the provisions of the law, States may receive allotments only after an application is submitted and approved by the Secretary, HHS. For the Federal fiscal year 2008-2010 SAPT Block Grant application cycles, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will provide States with revised application guidance and instructions to implement changes made in accordance with the recommendations of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis. In addition, SAMHSA has incorporated recommendations from the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors and their member States in the revisions and clarification of data reporting requirements and instructions. Revisions to the previously-approved application resulting from such stakeholder input reflect the following changes: (1) In Section I, Form 2, “Table of Contents,” was revised to appropriately enumerate the specific items within each section; (2) In Section II, the Narrative description of certain maintenance of effort and expenditure base calculations was simplified to require submission of such information only if it represented a revision from previous years' submissions. This section was also moved to its more appropriate place in the application immediately preceding reporting on maintenance of efforts; (3) In Section II, Form 4, “Substance Abuse State Agency Spending Report,” was amended to use consistent language for services expenditure reporting and planning across Forms 4, 6, and 11. On Form 4 and Form 11, Row 1, the activity to be reported on is entitled: SAPT Block Grant funds for Substance Abuse Prevention (other than primary prevention) and Treatment Services to be consistent with the terminology used in Form 6, Column 5; (4) In Section II, Form 6, Entity Inventory, instructions were clarified to communicate that information on all substance abuse prevention and treatment service providers funded through the Single State Agency (SSA) was sought; (5) In section II, Form 7A, “Treatment Utilization Matrix,” instructions were clarified to communicate that information on persons admitted and served within the specific reporting period was sought to enable the SAPT Block Grant Program to address the recommendations of the FY 2003 OMB PART analysis; (6) In Section II, Form 7B, “Number Of Persons Served (Unduplicated Count) For Alcohol And Other Drug Use In State Funded Services,” instructions were clarified in a similar manner as Form 7a and a separate data cell was added to accommodate States' desires to report on clients admitted in a prior reporting period but also continuing to be served within the current reporting period; (7) In Section II, Table I (Maintenance), “Single State Agency (SSA) Expenditures for Substance Abuse” was amended to reflect the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (8) In Section II, Table II (Maintenance), “Statewide Non-Federal Expenditures for Tuberculosis Services to Substance Abusers in Treatment,” was amended to reflect the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (9) In Section II, Table III (Maintenance), “Statewide Non-Federal Expenditures for HIV Early Intervention Services to Substance Abusers in Treatment,” was amended to allow States to enter the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (10) In Section II, Table IV (Maintenance), “SSA Expenditures for Women's Services,” was amended to reflect the appropriate fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (11) In Section III, Form 11, “Intended Use Plan,” was amended to use consistent language for services expenditure reporting and planning; (12) In Section IV, subpart IV-A, “Voluntary Treatment Performance Measures,” the general instructions were amended to implement mandatory reporting on performance measure forms T1-T7 and a narrative requirement is proposed to collect information on States internal practices to use performance measure data to manage their systems; (13) In Section IV-A, “Treatment Performance Measures” Forms T1-T7 data specifications replaced State detail sheet narrative requirements for forms T1-T7 to reduce the burden of reporting and improve the uniformity of data quality information being collected; (14) In Section IV-A, “Voluntary Treatment Performance Measures,” T6 on infectious disease control efforts was deleted because it was determined to be duplicative of information requirements in Section II of the application; (15) In Section IV, subpart IV-B, Voluntary Prevention Performance Measures,” Forms P5 and P6 were removed, P1-P15 were substituted for the previous Forms P1-P4 and the instructions were amended to address pre-population of prevention performance data.

The total annual reporting burden estimate is shown below:

Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

Notice is hereby given that, on December 27, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree (“Consent Decree”) in United States v. A.O. Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 04-5918, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In this action, the United States sought reimbursement of response costs incurred in connection with the release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the A.O. Polymer Superfund Site (“Site”), comprising 4.18 acres more or less located in Sparta Township, New Jersey. The United States has incurred at least $1,700,000 in unreimbursed past response costs relating to the Site, and estimates future response costs at $200,000. The Consent Decree resolves the United States' in rem claim under the Verified Complaint, and results in a recovery by the United States of 85% of the sales proceeds of the Site at a public sale. The Consent Decree also sets forth the terms that will govern the sale.

The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. A.O. Corporation, et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-07174/1.

The Consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Jersey, Peter Rodino Federal Building, 970 Broad Street, 7th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102 (contact Assistant United States Attorney Susan Steele), and at U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 (contact Assistant Regional Counsel Frances Maria Zizila). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov ), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $8.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address.

Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on January 12, 2007, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Leon A. Balthaser, Civil Action No. 07-cv-0156, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In this civil action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the United States seeks recovery of response costs from Leon A. Balthaser, in connection with the Peach Alley Parking Lot Superfund Site in Hamburg, Berks County, Pennsylvania (“Peach Alley Site” or “Site”). The proposed Consent Decree resolves the liability of Mr. Balthaser, who is the owner of the Peach Alley Site, under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. The Consent Decree requires Mr. Balthaser to make a cash payment of $20,000 in reimbursement of response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site, and to provide access to, and restrict use of, the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Please address comments to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and refer to United States v. Leon A. Balthaser, D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-08820.

The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/consent_decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov ), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. When requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $9.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on January 11, 2007, a First Amendment to the Consent Decree entered in the case of United States, et al. v. ConocoPhillips Company , Civil Action No. H-05-0258, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Under the original Consent Decree, the ConocoPhillips Company (“COPC”) agreed to implement innovative pollution control technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter from refinery process units at nine refineries owned and operated by COPC. COPC also agreed to adopt facility-wide enhanced benzene waste monitoring and fugitive emission control programs. COPC still is so obligated, but under the First Amendment, COPC will install additional pollution control technology, including, in one instance, a new electrostatic precipitator, in consideration for deadline extensions. In addition, COPC will be entitled to numerous deadline extensions at COPC's refinery in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, because of damage that refinery suffered from Hurricane Katrina. In the First Amendment, the United States is joined by the State of Illinois, the State of Louisiana, the State of New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Northwest Clean Air Agency in the State of Washington.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the First Amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States, et al. v. ConocoPhillips Company , D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-06722/1.

The First Amendment may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 919 Milam St., Suite 1500, Houston, Texas 77208, and at U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. During the public comment period, the First Amendment may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html . A copy of the First Amendment may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov) , fax number (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $14.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury, or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address.

Under 22 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on January 8, 2007, a proposed consent decree in United States v. Electra Realty Co. and Electra Products Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 06-2238, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In this action the United States is seeking to recover response costs incurred by the United States pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., in connection with the Electra Property (located at 200 West 5th Street, Lansdale, PA 19446) at the North Penn Area Six Superfund Site (“Site”), which consists of a contaminated groundwater plume and a number of separate parcels of property located within and adjacent to the Borough of Lansdale, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The proposed consent decree will resolve the United States' claims against Electra Realty Co. and Electra Products Co., Inc. (“Settling Defendants”) in connection with the Site. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, Settling Defendants will either (A) pay the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund $350,000.00 in partial reimbursement of the United States' response costs, or (B) elect the option to sell the Electra Property and comply with the terms set forth in Section VI of the proposed consent decree. Settling Defendants will receive a covenant not to sue by the United States with regard to the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Electra Realty Co., et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-06024/15.

The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106, and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov ), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost). Checks should be made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Notice is hereby given that, on December 22, 2006, a proposed settlement in U.S. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. , Civil Action No. 06-6077, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In this action the United States seeks a judgment of liability against eleven defendants and an order requiring the defendants to perform certain response actions selected by EPA as a remedial action at the Atlantic Resources Corporation Superfund Site (“ARC Site”) and the Horseshoe Road Drum Dump (“HRDD Site”) portion of the Horseshoe Road Superfund Site in Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The United States also seeks reimbursement of EPA's past and future response costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the two Sites. The eleven defendants (“Defendants”) and one federal potentially responsible party, the Department of Defense (“Settling Federal Agency”), are parties to the Consent Decree. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Defendants will perform and the Settling Federal Agency will provide its share of the funding for a Remedial Design and a Remedial Action at the ARC Site, and a Remedial Design at the HRDD Site. The Consent Decree requires the Defendants and the Settling Federal Agency to reimburse EPA its past costs incurred at the ARC Site, in the amount of $863,579.41, as well as certain of the United States' future costs incurred or to be incurred at the two Sites.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the settlement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to U.S. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. , D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-480/2.

The settlement may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 970 Broad Street, Suite 700, Newark, NJ 07102, and at the Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. During the public comment period, the settlement may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html . A copy of the settlement may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov ), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $41.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address.

Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Winchester Municipal Utilities , Civ. No. 06-102-KSF, was lodged on January 16, 2007, with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division.

The proposed Consent Decree would resolve certain claims under Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., against the City of Winchester (“the City”) and Winchester Municipal Utilities (“WMU”), through the performance of injunctive measures, the payment of a civil penalty, and the performance of a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”). The United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky allege that the City and WMU are liable as persons who discharged a pollutant from a point source to navigable waters of the United States without a permit.

The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the liability of the City and WMU for the violations alleged in the amended complaint filed in this matter. To resolve these claims, the City and WMU would perform injunctive measures valued at over $79 million and described in the proposed Consent Decree; would pay a civil penalty of $75,000 to the United States Treasury; and would perform a SEP valued at $230,000, which is designed to abate stormwater runoff pollution to an impaired waterway.

The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044 and should refer to United States v. Winchester Municipal Utilities, DJ No. 90-5-1-1-08806.

The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 110 West Vine Street, Suite 400, Lexington KY 40507-1671, and at the Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta GA 30303. During the public comment period, the decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov ), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $65.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. The check should refer to United States v. Winchester Municipal Utilities, DJ No. 90-5-1-1-00806.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, notice is given that the Department of Justice proposes to modify all of its systems of records, as identified in the list below.

On October 30, 2006, the Department modified all of its systems of records to include a new routine use that allows disclosure to appropriate persons and entities for purposes of response and remedial efforts in the event that there has been a breach of the data contained in the systems. 71 FR 63,354 (October 30, 2006).

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public was given a 30-day period in which to comment; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy Act, required a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the systems.

As a result of comments received, the Department is making a minor modification to the language of the routine use in order to provide greater clarity. A concern was raised that the condition set forth in clause (1) of the routine use (“when (1) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised”) does not clearly identify precisely who has to suspect or confirm the compromise. While it was the intent of the drafters that it be the Department of Justice that must suspect or confirm the compromise, because that intent is expressed only implicitly in the routine use, the Department is modifying the language of the first condition to provide additional clarity.

A description of the modification to the Department's systems of records is provided below. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and the Congress. The new routine use will be effective January 25, 2007.

Department of Justice Privacy Act notices and citations follow. An asterisk (*) designates the last publication of the complete document in the Federal Register .

Notice is hereby given that, on December 12, 2006 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 14 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), AAF Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Apple, Cupertino, CA; Konan Technology, Inc., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and SADiE, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AAF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On March 28, 2000, AAF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).

The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67642).

Notice is hereby given that, on December 14, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), ASTM International—Standards (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between September 2006 and December 2006, designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at http://www.astm.org .

On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).

The last notification was filed with the Department on September 28, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 20, 2006 (71 FR 34644).

For additional information, please contact: Thomas B. O'Brien, Jr., General Counsel, at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, telephone 610-832-9597, e-mail address tobrien@astm.org .

Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Blaupunkt GmbH, Hildesheim, GERMANY; Chinachip Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Commtech Technology Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd., Macau, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Dailystar Technology Limited, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; Dongguan SIMON Technology Co., Ltd., Guangdon, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Dvation Co., Ltd., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; GM Records Marek Grela, Warsaw, POLAND; Le Hong Po Company Limited, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; Optical Disc Solutions, Inc., Richmond, IN; Polar Frog Digital, Scottsdale, AZ; Protocall Technologies Incorporated, Commack, NY; Shenzhen Xing Feng Industry Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Skypine Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; VTV nv, West Vlaanderen, BELGIUM; and Yuban & Co., Taipei, TAIWAN have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Toshiba-EMI Limited, Tokyo, JAPAN; and Yuxing Electronics Company Limited, Tortola, BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).

The last notification was filed with the Department on September 21, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63035).

Notice is hereby given that, on October 23, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq . (“the Act”), the ManyCore Collaboration Project (“ManyCore Collaboration”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; and Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA. The general area of the ManyCore Collaboration's planned activity is the creation of new technologies in the area of ManyCore memory technology. Through the venture, the parties will work to develop hardware and 36+software functional elements that better enable the effective use of parallelism.

Notice is hereby given that, on December 11, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq . (“the Act”), National Conference of Public Officials, Inc. (“NCOPO”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: National Conference of Public Officials, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. The nature and scope of NCOPO's standards development activities are: To develop, plan, establish, coordinate and publish voluntary consensus standards applicable to the fields of government ethics, accountability and productivity. Specifically, NCOPO, a nonprofit corporation consisting of elected and appointed public officials as voting members and attorneys, government contractors, nonprofit organizations engaged in public advocacy, political parties and other stakeholders as non-voting members, develops, plans, establishes, coordinates and publishes voluntary consensus standards in the form of model uniform codes and standards for adoption with or without modification by any Federal, State or municipal governmental unit as statutes, ordinances, administrative codes and regulations, or court rules of procedures covering nine topical subjects, consisting of (1) Ethics and standards of conduct for public and political officeholders; (2) public safety, Homeland and national security; (3) prosecution, public defenders, legal aid societies, and other court and judicial matters; (4) public accessibility to government, campaign financing, voting accessibility, elections and administration of political parties and campaign committees; (5) administrative and regulator processes; (6) land use, planning, zoning, environmental protection and energy conservation; (7) public infrastructure, public property, transportation and public transit; (8) delivery of healthcare and social relief and welfare services, public education; and (9) other miscellaneous matters not covered by the aforementioned topics.

Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2006, pursuant to Section 69a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Portland Cement Association (“PCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Vezer's PIC, Suisun, CA has become an Associate Member.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PCA intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

On January 7, 1985, PCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 5, 1985 (50 FR 5015).

The last notification was filed with the Department on July 10, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45581).

Notice is hereby given that, on December 21, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq . (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Keithley Instruments, Inc., Solon, OH; and PLX Technology, Sunnyvale, CA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Mapsuka Industries Co., Ltd., Taipei, TAIWAN has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on march 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).

The last notification was filed with the Department on October 5, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67642).

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is hereby correcting a notice of application that appeared in the Federal Register on January 23, 2006 (71 FR 3545). That document announced the application of Cody Laboratories, Inc., to be registered as an importer of raw opium, poppy straw, and concentrate of poppy straw.

The January 23, 2006, notice of application incorrectly stated that “[a]ny manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.” Correctly stated, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and DEA regulations, applications to import narcotic raw materials, including raw opium, poppy straw, and concentrate of poppy straw, are not required to be published in the Federal Register . Further, the notice of application, although not required to be published at all, should have stated that “bulk manufacturers” of raw opium, poppy straw, or concentrate of poppy straw may file a written request for a hearing. As explained in the Correction to Notice of Application pertaining to Rhodes Technologies published today, since there are no domestic bulk manufacturers of narcotic raw materials registered with DEA, no registrant has a statutory or regulatory right to a hearing on the application. For the reasons set forth therein, I correct the Notice of Application dated January 23, 2006. I direct the Administrative Law Judge to remove from the agency's administrative docket the hearing on the application of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to be registered as an importer of narcotic raw materials.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is hereby correcting a notice of application that appeared in the Federal Register on April 17, 2006 (71 FR 20729). That document announced the application of Rhodes Technologies to be registered as an importer of raw opium and concentrate of poppy straw. This is the second correction to the original notice of application. This document augments the correction which was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29354).

The April 17, 2006, notice of application incorrectly stated that “[a]ny manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.” Correctly stated, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and DEA regulations, applications to import narcotic raw materials, including raw opium and concentrate of poppy straw, are not required to be published in the Federal Register . Further, the notice of application, although not required to be published at all, should have stated that “bulk manufacturers” of raw opium or concentrate of poppy straw may file a written request for a hearing. As explained below, since there are no domestic bulk manufacturers of narcotic raw materials registered with DEA, no registrant has a statutory or regulatory right to a hearing on the application.

In response to the notice, several importers of narcotic raw materials who also hold manufacturing registrations (but not as “bulk manufacturers” of narcotic raw materials) requested a hearing on the application. DEA's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accepted the requests for hearings and placed the case on DEA's administrative hearing docket. This correction notifies the applicant, the public, and those importers/manufacturers that requested a hearing that DEA is denying the requests for hearing and dismissing the case on the agency's administrative docket.

As set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General (by delegation, the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of DEA)  1 shall, prior to issuing an importer registration to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide “manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the CSA contemplates that only “bulk manufacturers” shall be entitled to hearing on an application to import a schedule I or II controlled substance and, further, that only those who are registered to bulk manufacture the particular substance that the applicant seeks to import. Accordingly, if no one is registered to bulk manufacture the substance that the applicant seeks to import, no one is entitled to a hearing on that application.

DEA's registration database confirms that no person holds a registration as a bulk manufacturer of raw opium, concentrate of poppy straw, or any of the other narcotic raw materials listed in 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(1). 2 Accordingly, the CSA provides no right to a hearing to any person seeking to challenge the application of another to become registered to import such narcotic raw materials.

Consistent with the CSA, the DEA regulations provide that the only persons who are entitled to a hearing on an application for a registration to import a schedule I or II controlled substance are those who are either “registered as a bulk manufacturer of that controlled substance” or an “applicant therefor.” 21 CFR 1301.34(a). 3

In sum, neither the CSA nor the DEA regulations provide a right to a hearing for anyone seeking to contest the application of Rhodes Technologies to import narcotic raw material.

DEA is aware that the agency has, in some prior cases of applications to import narcotic raw materials, granted requests for hearings made by persons that were not bulk manufacturers of the narcotic raw material—despite the fact that no such hearing right is contemplated by the governing statute or implementing regulations. See, e.g., Penick Corp.; Importation and Manufacture of Controlled Substances, Objections, Requests for Hearing, and Hearing, 42 FR 82760 (1980); Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Approval of Registration, 46 FR 24747 (1981); Johnson Matthey, Inc.; Conditional Grant of Registration to Import Schedule II Substances, 67 FR 39041 (2002); Penick Corporation, Inc.; Grant of Registration to Import Schedule II Substances, 68 FR 6947, 6948 (2003); Chattem Chemicals, Inc.; Grant of Registration to Import Schedule II Substances, 71 FR 9834 (2006). In these past cases, the agency did not state that such non-bulk-manufacturers were entitled to a hearing under 21 U.S.C. 958(i) or 21 CFR 1301.34(a). Rather, the agency either granted the hearing without explanation or did so based on what it termed its “discretionary authority.” See, e.g., Penick Corporation, Inc.; Grant of Registration to Import Schedule II Substances, 68 FR 6947, 6948 (2003). Without addressing whether the agency indeed has the theoretical legal authority to grant such hearing requests, I now conclude that the most sound reading of the statute and regulations is that which limits the right to a hearing to those situations in which Congress expressly provided such a right.

As stated above, 21 U.S.C. 958(i), by its plain terms, gives the right to request a hearing not in the case of all applications for a registration to import, but only in those in which the applicant for the import registration is a “bulk manufacturer” and only where the person seeking the hearing is a “bulk manufacturer” of the substance the applicant is seeking to import. Because there are no registered bulk manufacturers of narcotic raw materials, 4 the facts triggering the right to a hearing under section 958(i) are not present in cases in which the applicant for an import registration is seeking to import narcotic raw materials under section 952(a)(1). In contrast, the facts needed to invoke the hearing right of section 958(i) will be present when the applicant is seeking to import the substances referred to in section 952(a)(2), since there are registered bulk manufacturers of the substances referred to in section 952(a)(2) (substances which are not narcotic raw materials). 5

Congress could have extended the hearing right under 958(i) to importers of narcotic raw materials. That it instead chose to limit that right to bulk manufacturers indicates a determination on its part that extending the hearing right to others is not necessary to advance the goals of the CSA. Among other considerations, invocation of the hearing right by a competitor can add considerable time (months and sometimes years) to the process by which the agency determines whether to grant the application. An existing registrant could ask for a hearing simply to delay a competitor's entry into the market—particularly given that DEA has not promulgated any criteria for deciding whether to grant these types of hearing requests. Such a delay would tend to run counter to the obligation of an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act requires to conclude adjudications “with due regard to the convenience and necessity of the parties * * * and within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. 555(b). Moreover, if DEA were to maintain a policy (not contemplated by the CSA) whereby a competitor could simply request a hearing without making any showing that the hearing either would assist the agency in deciding whether to grant the application or otherwise advance the goals of the CSA, it would be difficult to envision how the agency could act on such hearing requests other than on arbitrary basis. Basic principles of fairness dictate against such an outcome.

Of course, the consideration of delay to the applicant also exists when a bulk manufacturer seeks a hearing on the application of a potential competitor as allowed under section 958(i). However, that Congress expressly provided for a hearing right in such circumstances indicates that Congress weighed the consideration of delay and, on balance, determined the goals of the CSA were advanced by providing a hearing right in such circumstances. Again, that Congress expressed clear criteria as to when the hearing right applied reflects a clear delineation by Congress as to when such hearing right does—or does not—advance the overall goals of the Act.

The mere fact that the agency has followed a procedural practice in the past does not, by itself, compel that the agency repeat the procedure in perpetuity. Finding no valid justification for the past practice, and finding such practice inconsistent with the particular criteria for a hearing rights set forth in the CSA and implementing regulations, I decline to follow this practice.

It should be emphasized, however, that this decision to disallow a hearing right beyond that stated in the statute or regulations by no means should be construed as an indication that this application will be approved without the appropriate scrutiny. As mandated by the CSA, DEA will—prior to deciding whether to issue an order to show cause to deny this application—evaluate the application in accordance with the applicable statutory criteria (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(1) and 958(a)). Section 958(a) requires DEA to evaluate the application under the six public interest factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(a). See Penick Corporation, 68 FR 6947 (2003); Roxane Laboratories, Inc., 63 FR 55891 (1998).

For the reasons and in the manner set forth above, I correct the Notice of Application dated April 17, 2006. I direct the ALJ to remove from the agency's administrative docket the hearing on the application of Rhodes Technologies to register as an importer of narcotic raw materials.

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 18, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by the United Steelworkers, Local 905L on behalf of workers of Advanced Technology Corp., Geneva, Ohio.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 1 through January 5, 2007.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and

C. One of the following must be satisfied:

1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;

2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or

3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.

Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) Either—

(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B) A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.

1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.

2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.

3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry ( i.e. , conditions within the industry are adverse).

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met.

TA-W-60,534; Ceramaspeed, Inc., Maryville, TN: December 4, 2005.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.

The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older.

The Department has determined that criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable.

The Department has determined that criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse.

In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.

Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country under a free trade agreement or a beneficiary country under a preferential trade agreement, or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports).

The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of January 1 through January 5, 2007. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.

Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 5, 2007.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 5, 2007.

The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 8, 2006, applicable to workers of D-M-E Company, Charlevoix Plant, a subsidiary of Milacron, Inc., Charlevoix, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68844).

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of pins and sleeves ( i.e., tooling for plastics).

New information shows that leased workers of Aerotek were employed on-site at the Charlevoix, Michigan location of D-M-E Company, Charlevoix Plant, a subsidiary of Milacron, Inc.

Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Aerotek working on-site at D-M-E Company, Charlevoix Plant, a subsidiary of Milacron, Inc., Charlevoix, Michigan.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at D-M-E Company, Charlevoix Plant, a subsidiary of Milacron, Inc., Charlevoix, Michigan who were adversely affected by increased company imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,301 is hereby issued as follows:

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on October 24, 2006, applicable to workers of Oxford Collections, Inc., Women's Catalog Division, New York, New York and Gaffney, South Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2006 (71 FR 66799).

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of ladies' apparel, such as women's sportswear separates, coordinated outerwear, dresses and swimwear.

New information shows that as of May 5, 2006, the correct name of the subject firm should read Oxford Collections, Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Millwork Trading Co., Ltd, d/b/a Li & Fung USA, including on-site leased workers of Ambrose Employer Group, LLC, New York, New York and Gaffney, South Carolina.

Information also shows that all workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Ambrose Employer Group, LLC.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect these matters.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Oxford Collections, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Millwork Trading Co., Ltd, d/b/a Li & Fung USA, New York, New York and Gaffney, South Carolina who were adversely affected by increased customer imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,077 and TA-W-60,077A are hereby issued as follows:

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on October 3, 2006, applicable to workers of Owens-Brockway, Inc., Global Glass Technologies Division, a division of Owens-Illinois, Inc., including on-site leased workers of Manpower, Inc., Godfrey, Illinois. The notice was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63800).

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of machined parts for glass forming machines.

New information shows that leased workers of Availability were employed on-site at the Godfrey, Illinois location of Owens-Brockway, Inc., Global Glass Technologies Div., a division of Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Availability working on-site at Owens-Brockway, Inc., Global Glass Technologies Division, a division of Owens-Illinois, Inc., Godfrey, Illinois.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Owens-Brockway, Inc., Global Glass Technologies Division, a division of Owens-Illinois, Inc. who were adversely affected by a shift in production to the United Kingdom, Colombia, South America, Mexico and China.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,136 is hereby issued as follows:

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 8 through January 12, 2007.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

I. Section (a)(2)(A), all of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B), both of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and

C. One of the following must be satisfied:

1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;

2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or

3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.

Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits, and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) Either—

(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.

1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.

2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.

3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry ( i.e. , conditions within the industry are adverse).

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.

In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.

The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older.

The Department has determined that criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable.

The Department has determined that criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse.

In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.

Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.

The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country under a free trade agreement or a beneficiary country under a preferential trade agreement, or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports).

The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of January 8 through January 12, 2007. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 12, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Reel Quick, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 15, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Valley Mills, Inc., Valley Head, Alabama.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit No. 1, located in Salem County, New Jersey.

The amendment request proposes a one-time change to the Technical Specifications (TSs) regarding the steam generator (SG) tube inspection and repair required for the portion of the SG tubes passing through the tubesheet region. Specifically, for Salem Unit No. 1 refueling outage 18 (planned for spring 2007) and the subsequent operating cycle, the proposed TS changes would limit the required inspection (and repair if degradation is found) to the portions of the SG tubes passing through the upper 17 inches of the approximate 21-inch tubesheet region.

Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.

If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (viii).

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038, attorney for the licensee.

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 18, 2007, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible 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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on February 15, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Thursday, February 15, 2007—8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m.

The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

On October 24, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 2 On November 22, 2006, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On December 8, 2006, Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 27, 2006 for a 15-day comment period. 5 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.

Amex Rules 1000A et seq. provide standards for the listing of Index Fund Shares, which are securities issued by an open-end management investment company for exchange trading. 6 Index Fund Shares are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”), as well as under the Act. Under Amex Rule 1000A(b)(2), the Exchange proposes to list and trade Index Fund Shares that seek to provide investment results that exceed the performance of an underlying securities index by a specified multiple or that seek to provide investment results that correspond to a specified multiple of the inverse or opposite of the index's performance.

Pursuant to these rules, the Exchange proposes to list the shares (the “Shares”) of eighty-one (81) new funds (the “Funds”) of the ProShares Trust (the “Trust”). In its proposal, the Exchange provided detailed descriptions regarding the Underlying Indexes, 7 as well as the structure and operation of the Funds and the listing and trading of the Shares. Key features of the proposal are noted below.

The Funds are based on the following equity securities indexes: (1) S&P Small Cap 600 Index; (2) S&P 500/Citigroup Value Index; (3) S&P 500/Citigroup Growth Index; (4) S&P MidCap 400/Citigroup Value Index; (5) S&P MidCap 400/Citigroup Growth Index; (6) S&P SmallCap 600/Citigroup Value Index; (7) S&P SmallCap 600/Citigroup Growth Index; (8) Dow Jones U.S. Basic Materials Index; (9) Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Services Index; (10) Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Goods Index; (11) Dow Jones U.S. Oil and Gas Index; (12) Dow Jones U.S. Financials Index; (13) Dow Jones U.S. Health Care Index; (14) Dow Jones U.S. Industrials Index; (15) Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index; (16) Dow Jones U.S. Semiconductor Index; (17) Dow Jones U.S. Technology Index; (18) Dow Jones U.S. Utilities Index; (19) Russell 2000® Index; (20) Russell Midcap® Index; (21) Russell Midcap® Growth Index; (22) Russell Midcap® Value Index; (23) Russell 1000® Index; (24) Russell 1000® Growth Index; (25) Russell 1000® Value Index; (26) Russell 2000® Growth Index; and (27) Russell 2000® Value Index (each index individually referred to as the “Underlying Index,” and all Underlying Indexes collectively referred to as the “Underlying Indexes”).

Each of the Funds is designated as an Ultra Fund, Short Fund, or UltraShort Fund, based on its investment objective. Each Ultra Fund or “Bullish Fund” seeks a daily investment result, before fees and expenses, which corresponds to twice (200%) the daily performance of its Underlying Index. Accordingly, the NAV of the Shares of each Ultra Fund, if successful in meeting its objective, should increase, on a percentage basis, approximately twice as much as the corresponding Underlying Index gains when the prices of the securities in such Underlying Index increase on a given day, and should decrease approximately twice as much as the respective Underlying Index loses when such prices decline on a given day. The Bullish Funds generally will hold at least 85% of their assets in the component equity securities of the relevant Underlying Index. The remainder of assets will be devoted to certain financial instruments  8 and money market instruments  9 that are intended to create the additional needed exposure to such Underlying Index necessary to pursue its investment objective.

Each Short Fund seeks a daily investment result, before fees and expenses, that corresponds to the inverse or opposite of the daily performance (−100%) of its Underlying Index. Accordingly, the NAV of the Shares of each Short Fund should increase approximately as much, on a percentage basis, as the corresponding Underlying Index loses when the prices of the securities in the Underlying Index decline on a given day, or should decrease approximately as much as that Underlying Index gains when the prices of the securities in the Underlying Index rise on a given day.

Finally, each UltraShort Fund seeks a daily investment result, before fees and expenses, that corresponds to twice the inverse (−200%) of the daily performance of its Underlying Indexes. Accordingly, the NAV of the Shares of each UltraShort Fund should increase approximately twice as much, on a percentage basis, as the corresponding Underlying Index loses when the prices of the securities in the Underlying Index decline on a given day, or should decrease approximately twice as much as that Underlying Index gains when the prices of the securities in the Underlying Index rise on a given day.

The Short Funds and UltraShort Funds each have investment objectives that seek investment results corresponding to an inverse performance of the Underlying Indexes and are collectively referred to as the “Bearish Funds.” Each of these Bearish Funds will not invest directly in the component securities of the relevant Underlying Index, but instead, will create short exposure to such Underlying Index. Each Bearish Fund will rely on establishing positions in Financial Instruments that provide, on a daily basis, the inverse or opposite of, or twice the inverse or opposite of, as the case may be, the performance of the relevant Underlying Index. Normally, 100% of the value of the portfolios of each Bearish Fund will be devoted to Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments. 10

As advisor to the Funds, ProShare Advisors LLC (the “Advisor”) will implement a mathematical investment strategy known or “Portfolio Investment Methodology,” to establish an investment exposure in each portfolio corresponding to each Fund's investment objective. The Portfolio Investment Methodology takes into account a variety of specified criteria and data, the most important of which are: (1) Net assets (taking into account creations and redemptions) in each Fund's portfolio at the end of each trading day; (2) the amount of required exposure to the Underlying Index; and (3) the positions in equity securities, Financial Instruments, and/or Money Market Instruments at the beginning of each trading day. Each day, the methodology will determine for each Fund, the end-of-day positions to establish the required amount of exposure to the Underlying Index (the “Solution”), which will consist of equity securities, Financial Instruments, and/or Money Market Instruments. The difference between the start-of-day positions and the required end-of-day positions is the actual amount of equity securities, Financial Instruments, and/or Money Market Instruments that must be bought or sold for the day. The Solution represents the required exposure and, when necessary, is converted into an order or orders to be filled that same day. 11

The Funds are expected to have a daily tracking error of less than 5% (500 basis points) relative to the specified multiple or inverse multiple of the performance of the relevant Underlying Index.

Fund Shares will be issued and redeemed on a continuous basis at a price equal to the NAV per Share next determined after an order is received in proper form. Only certain qualified entities (“Authorized Participants”) may create or redeem Shares, and each Fund will issue and redeem Shares only in aggregations of at least 50,000 (“Creation Units”). Additional information about the creation and redemption process is included in Amex's proposal. 12

In summary, to create Bullish Fund Shares, an Authorized Participant must properly place a creation order and typically make an in-kind deposit of a basket of equity securities (“Deposit Securities”) consisting of the securities selected by the Advisor from among those securities contained in the Fund's portfolio, 13 together with an amount of cash specified by the Advisor (the “Balancing Amount”), plus the applicable transaction fee (together, the “Creation Deposit”).

The Bullish Funds reserve the right to permit or require an Authorized Participant to substitute an amount of cash and/or a different security to replace any prescribed Deposit Security. In certain limited instances, a Bullish Fund may require a purchasing investor to purchase a Creation Unit entirely for cash. For example, on days when a substantial rebalancing of a Fund's portfolio is required, the Advisor might prefer to receive cash rather than in-kind stocks so that it has liquid resources on hand to make the necessary purchases.

Similarly, Bullish Fund Shares in Creation Unit-size aggregations will be redeemable on any day on which the New York Stock Exchange is open in exchange for a basket of securities (“Redemption Securities”), a list of which will be available to Authorized Participants on each business day prior to the opening of trading. To redeem Shares in a Bullish Fund, an Authorized Participant must properly place a redemption order and deliver the Redemption Securities, any required Balancing Amount, and applicable transaction fee. 14

Notably, the Balancing Amount may, at times, represent a significant portion of the aggregate purchase price or, in the case of redemptions, the redemption proceeds. This may occur because the mark-to-market value of the Financial Instruments held by the Bullish Funds, if any, is included in the Balancing Amount.

The Bearish Funds will be purchased and redeemed entirely for cash (“All-Cash Payments”). The use of an All-Cash Payment for the purchase and redemption of Creation Unit aggregations of the Bearish Fund Shares is due to the limited transferability of Financial Instruments.

As described more fully in the Notice, dividends, if any, from net investment income will be declared and paid at least annually by each Fund in the same manner as by other open-end investment companies. Distributions of realized securities gains, if any, generally will be declared and paid once a year.

In its proposal, the Exchange stated that it did not expect the Shares to trade at a material discount or premium to the underlying securities held by a Fund based on potential arbitrage opportunities. As is the case for other exchange traded derivative products, the arbitrage process should provide market participants the opportunity to profit from differences in the price of Shares and their underlying value, mitigating the occurrence of material discounts or premiums.

The daily closing index value and the percentage change in the daily closing index value for each Underlying Index will be publicly available on various Internet Web sites, such as at http://www.bloomberg.com. Data regarding each Underlying Index is also available from the respective Underlying Index provider to subscribers. Several independent data vendors also package and disseminate Underlying Index data in various value-added formats (including vendors displaying both securities and index levels and vendors displaying index levels only).

The value of each Underlying Index will be updated intra-day on a real time basis as its individual component securities change in price. These intra-day values of each Underlying Index will be disseminated at least every 15 seconds throughout the trading day by Amex or another organization authorized by the relevant Underlying Index provider in accordance with Commentary .02(c) to Amex Rule 1000A.

During the Exchange's regular trading hours, Amex will calculate and disseminate at least every 15 seconds through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”), an Indicative Intra-Day Value (“IIV”) for each of the Funds on a per Share basis, representing an estimate of the NAV per Share for each Fund. The Exchange will also make the IIV available on its Web site at http://www.amex.com .

For each Bullish Fund, the designated IIV Calculator (Amex) will determine the IIV by: (i) Calculating the estimated current value of equity securities held by such Fund by (a) calculating the percentage change in the value of the Deposit Securities indicated on the Deposit List (as provided by the Trust) and applying that percentage value to the total value of the equity securities in the Fund as of the close of trading on the prior trading day (as provided by the Trust) or (b) calculating the current value of all of the equity securities held by the Fund (as provided by the Trust); (ii) calculating the mark-to-market gains or losses from the Fund's total return equity swap exposure based on the percentage change to the Underlying Index and the previous day's notional values of the swap contracts, if any, held by such Fund (which previous day's notional value will be provided by the Trust); (iii) calculating the mark-to-market gains or losses from futures, options, and other Financial Instrument positions by taking the difference between the current value of those positions held by the Fund, if any (as provided by the Trust), and the previous day's value of such positions; (iv) adding the values from (i), (ii), and (iii) above to an estimated cash amount provided by the Trust (which cash amount will include the swap costs), to arrive at a value; and (v) dividing that value by the total Shares outstanding (as provided by the Trust) to obtain current IIV.

For each Bearish Fund, the Exchange will determine the IIV by: (i) Calculating the mark-to-market gains or losses from the Fund's total return equity swap exposure based on the percentage change to the Underlying Index and the previous day's notional values of the swap contracts, if any, held by such Fund (which previous day's notional value will be provided by the Trust); (ii) calculating the mark-to-market gains or losses from futures, options, and other Financial Instrument positions by taking the difference between the current value of those positions held by the Fund, if any (as provided by the Trust), and the previous day's value of such positions; (iii) adding the values from (i) and (ii) above to an estimated cash amount provided by the Trust (which cash amount will include the swap costs), to arrive at a value; and (iv) dividing that value by the total Shares outstanding (as provided by the Trust) to obtain current IIV.

Amex will disseminate for each Fund on a daily basis through the facilities of the CTA and CQ High Speed Lines and on its Web site at http://www.amex.com the following information:

• Daily trading volume;

• the closing prices of each Fund's Shares and corresponding NAV; and

• the final dividend amounts to be paid for each Fund.

The Exchange will also make available information with respect to recent NAV, Shares outstanding, and the estimated cash amount and total cash amount per Creation Unit.

Additionally, the Trust's Internet Web site (http://www.proshares.com) , which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information for each Fund's Shares: (a) The prior business day's closing NAV, the reported closing price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price in relation to the closing NAV; (b) data for a period covering at least the four previous calendar quarters (or the life of a Fund, if shorter) indicating how frequently each Fund's Shares traded at a premium or discount to NAV based on the daily closing price and the closing NAV, and the magnitude of such premiums and discounts; (c) its prospectus and product description; and (d) other quantitative information, such as daily trading volume.

The Web site for the Trust and/or the Exchange will also disclose each Fund's total portfolio composition on a daily basis, including, as applicable, the names and number of shares held of each specific equity security, the specific types of Financial Instruments and characteristics of such Financial Instruments, and the cash equivalents and amount of cash held in the portfolio of each Fund. Importantly, this public Internet Web site disclosure of the portfolio composition of each Fund will coincide with the disclosure by the Advisor of the “IIV File” and the portfolio composition file (“PCF”) to Authorized Participants. Therefore, the same portfolio information (including accrued expenses and dividends) will be provided to all market participants at the same time.

Also, as explained in Amex's proposal, beneficial owners of Shares (“Beneficial Owners”) will receive all of the statements, notices, and reports required under the 1940 Act and other applicable laws. 15

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 December 19, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act  3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. On January 16, 2007, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to amend Amex's Member Fees to eliminate the Associate Members' Initiation Fee and the Financial Regulation Fee, to reduce the Electronic Access Fee paid by Associate Members, and to increase the Associate Member Nominee initiation fee of $1,500 currently charged to $2,000 and re-designate such fee as an application fee (in order to conform this fee to the application fee charged to all members).

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( http://www.amex.com/atamex/ruleFilings/2006/SR_Amex_2006_116_initial.pdf ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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.

Amex currently charges a one-time initiation fee (the “Initiation Fee”) to Associate Members that is equivalent to 5% of the price of the last completed regular membership sold. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this Initiation Fee, which has become disproportionate to the cost of other types of seat-based, Regular, Option Principal, and Limited Trading Permit Memberships. The Exchange believes that the Initiation Fee may act as a deterrent for firms seeking to apply for membership.

Associate Members are also currently required to pay a financial regulation fee (“Financial Regulation Fee”) which is imposed in instances where the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority ( “DEA”). This fee may be waived by demonstrating to the Exchange's Financial Regulatory Services Department that 10% of the firm's volume is transacted on the floor of the Exchange. The Financial Regulation Fee is $4,000 a month for associate member firms and $3,000 annually for individual Associate Members. The Exchange submits that this fee does not generate significant income, and further acts as an impediment to expanding Associate Memberships. Associate Members, however, will continue to be subject to Regulatory Fees that are applicable to all members, as set forth in the Exchange's Examination Fees section of the Member Fees.

The Exchange is also proposing to reduce the current Electronic Access Fee from $30,000 to $15,000, to reflect the current prices of seats and the prices to lease a seat.

The Exchange notes that Associate Member firms will continue to be subject to Annual Membership dues of $1,500. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the Amex Constitution to charge Nominees of Associate Firms a $2,000 Application Processing fee to replace the Initiation Fee of $1,500. A $2,000 Application Processing fee is currently charged to all Members.

The Exchange believes that elimination of the Initiation Fee and the Financial Regulation Fee and the reduction of the Electronic Access Fee will help to adjust an imbalance in membership costs, and encourage firms to utilize this type of Membership. The Exchange represents that the foregoing fee adjustments will accordingly place the Associate Member status on a comparable level with the cost of floor memberships.

The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the 1934 Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 7 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using facilities. The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that it places Associate Member Fees on the same level as Regular, Option Principal, and Limited Trading Permit Memberships.

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.

No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act  8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder  9 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. 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. 10

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:

• 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 No. SR-Amex-2006-116 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 16, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” 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 BSE. The BSE filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act  3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The BSE proposes to extend the effective date of the amended rule governing the Exchange's Directed Order process on the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) from January 31, 2007 to July 31, 2007.

In its filing with the Commission, the BSE 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 BSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

On March 20, 2006 the BSE proposed an amendment to its rules governing its Directed Order process on the BOX. 5 The rules were amended to clearly state that the BOX Trading Host identifies to an Executing Participant (“EP”) the identity of the firm entering a Directed Order. The amended rule was to be effective until June 30, 2006, while the Commission considered a corresponding Exchange proposal  6 to amend its rules to permit EPs to choose the firms from which they will accept Directed Orders, while providing complete anonymity of the firm entering a Directed Order.

On June 30, 2006, the Exchange proposed extending the effective date of the amended rule governing its Directed Order process on the BOX from June 30, 2006 to September 30, 2006  7 while the Commission continued to consider the corresponding Exchange proposal to amend its rules to permit EPs to choose the firms from which they would accept Directed Orders, while providing complete anonymity of the firm entering a Directed Order and, on September 11, 2006, the Exchange again proposed extending the effective date of the amended rule governing its Directed Order process on the BOX from September 30, 2006 to January 31, 2007. 8

The Exchange now proposes another extension of the effective date of the amended rule governing its Directed Order process on the BOX from January 31, 2007, to July 31, 2007. In the event the Commission reaches a decision with respect to the corresponding Exchange proposal to amend its rules before July 31, 2007, the amended rule governing the Exchange's Directed Order process on the BOX will cease to be effective at the time of that decision.

This filing proposes to extend the effective date of the amended rule governing the Exchange's Directed Order process on the BOX from January 31, 2007 to July 31, 2007. 9

The amended rule is designed to clarify the information contained in a Directed Order. This proposed rule filing seeks to extend the amended rule's effectiveness from January 31, 2007 to July 31, 2007. This extension will afford the Commission the necessary time to consider SR-BSE-2005-52 which would amend the BOX rules on a permanent basis to permit EPs to choose the firms from which they will accept Directed Orders while providing complete anonymity of the firm entering a Directed Order. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in particular, in that it is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

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.

The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

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)  12 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 13

A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)  14 normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)  15 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The BSE requests that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 16 which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 5-day pre-filing notice and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would continue to conform the BOX rules with BOX's current practice and clarify that Directed Orders on BOX are not anonymous. 17 Accordingly, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.