Notices. Notice and request for comments

4,718 words·~21 min read·/register/2005/12/20/05-24273·

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52951; File No. SR-NYSE-2004-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Partial Amendment No. 1 To Amend Exchange Rule 431 (Margin Requirements) December 14, 2005. I. Introduction On July 12, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend specified provision of Exchange Rule 431 (margin requirements) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 3 On September 29, 2005, the Exchange filed a partial amendment to its proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 10, 2005. 5 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 4 SR-NYSE-2004-39:

Amendment No. 1. The NYSE, in coordination with the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), filed the partial amendment to conform the complex options spreads strategies to which its rule amendments apply to those of the CBOE. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52738 (Nov. 4, 2005); 70 FR 68501 (Nov. 10, 2005). II. Description The Exchange has proposed amendments to Rule 431 (margin requirements) that will recognize specific additional complex option spread strategies and set margin requirements commensurate with the risk of such spread strategies.

These complex spread strategies are a combination of two or more basic option spreads that are already covered under Exchange Rule 431. In addition, the Exchange has proposed the elimination of the two-dollar standard exercise price interval limitation for listed options and certain terminology with respect to “permitted offsets,” as defined in its Rule. The proposed amendments described below have been developed in conjunction with the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”).

A. Complex Option Spreads As noted, the Exchange has proposed amendments to Rule 431 to recognize certain additional complex option spread strategies that are the net result of combining two or more spread strategies that are currently recognized in the Exchange's margin rules. The netting of contracts in option series common to each of the currently recognized spreads in an aggregation reduces it to the complex spread strategies outlined below. The Exchange states that basic option spreads can be paired in such ways that they offset each other in terms of risk.

The total risk of the combined spreads is less than the sum of the risk of both spread positions if viewed as stand-alone strategies. The specific complex spread strategies listed below are structured using the same principles as, and are essentially expansions of, the advanced spreads currently allowed in Rule 431. Currently, Rule 431 recognizes and prescribes margin requirements for advanced spread strategies known as the “butterfly spread” and the “box spread.” However, the Exchange noted that these option spreads are limited in scope and that its proposal expands upon the types of pairings that would qualify for butterfly spread and box spread treatment.

Exchange Rule 431(f)(2)(G)(i) recognizes “calendar spreads,” also known as “time spreads,” but these spreads are not identified as such. The Exchange has proposed to define this term as “the sale of one option and the simultaneous purchase of an option with a more distant expiration date, both specifying the same underlying component with the same exercise price where the long options do not expire before the short option with the longest term expiration” in the definition section of the Rule (NYSE 431(f)(2)(C)) because some of the complex spreads recognized in this proposal will include this component of spread strategies.

The Exchange noted that to be eligible for the margin requirements in the proposal, a complex spread must be consistent with one of the seven patterns specified below. The expiration months and the sequence of the exercise prices must correspond to the same pattern, and the intervals between the exercise prices must be equal. Under the proposal, members and member organizations will be required to obtain initial and maintenance margin for the subject complex spreads, whether established outright or through netting, of not less than the sum of the margin required on each basic spread in the equivalent aggregation.

The Exchange noted that the basic requirements for complex options spreads are as follows:

(a)The complex spreads must be carried in a margin account;

(b)European-style options are prohibited for complex spread combinations having a long option series that expires after the other option series. Only American-style options may be used in these combinations. Additionally, the intervals between exercise prices must be equal, and each complex spread must comprise four option series, with the exception of a Long Calendar Butterfly Spread, which must comprised of three option series. According to the Exchange, the sum of the margin required on each currently recognized spread in each of the applicable aggregations renders a margin requirement for the subject complex spread strategies as stated below. The additional complex option strategies and maintenance margin requirements are as follows:

(1)A Long Condor Spread comprised of two long Butterfly Spreads;

(2)a Short Iron Butterfly Spread comprised of one long Butterfly Spread and one short Box Spread;

(3)a Short Iron Condor Spread comprised of two long Butterfly Spreads and one short Box Spread;

(4)a Long Calendar Butterfly Spread comprised of one long Calendar Spread and one long Butterfly Spread;

(5)a Long Calendar Condor Spread comprised of one long Calendar Spread and two long Butterfly Spreads;

(6)a Short Calendar Iron Butterfly Spread comprised of one long Calendar Spread plus one long Butterfly Spread and one short Box Spread; and

(7)a Short Calendar Iron Condor Spread comprised of one Long Calendar Spread plus two long Butterfly Spreads and one short Box Spread. The Exchange stated that the purpose and benefit of the proposal is to set levels of margin that more precisely represent the actual net risk of the option positions in the account and to enable customers to implement these strategies more efficiently. B. Permitted Offsets Currently, Exchange Rule 431(f)(2)(J) limits permitted offsets 6 for specialists and market makers in options to option series that are “in-or-at-the-money.” 7 Recently, various options exchanges have provided for the listing of options with one-dollar strike intervals in a number of classes. The Exchange stated that as a result, the use of securities to hedge option series that have one-dollar strike intervals has unintentionally become more restrictive. 6 NYSE Rule 431(f)(2)(J) defines a permitted offset position as, in the case of an option in which a specialist makes a market, a position in the underlying asset or other related assets, and in the case of other securities in which a specialist makes a market, a position in options overlying the securities in which a specialist makes a market. 7 NYSE Rule 431(f)(2)(J) defines the term “in or at the money” as the current market price of the underlying security is not more than two standard exercise intervals below (with respect to a call option) or above (with respect to a put option) the exercise price of the option. The Exchange has proposed a rule change to eliminate the two-dollar standard exercise price interval limitation for listed options and the definition of “in-or-at-the-money.” As proposed, Rule 431(f)(2)(J) would require permitted offset transactions be effected for specialist or market-making purposes such as hedging, risk reduction, rebalancing of positions, liquidation, or accommodation of customer orders, or other similar specialist or market-making purposes, while prohibiting trading in an underlying security that is not related to specialist or market making option activities, or that does not constitute a reasonable hedge. Because clearing firms have risk monitoring systems that alert them to unhedged positions and haircut requirements pursuant to Rule 15c3-1 8 of the Exchange Act 9 perform a similar function as NYSE margin requirements relative to providing adequate risk coverage to broker-dealers, the Exchange believes that the elimination of the two-dollar standard exercise price limitation and definition of “in-or-at-the-money” will not diminish the “safety and soundness” protections that Rule 431 provides. 8 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. 9 15 U.S.C. 78a. III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, 11 which requires that the rules of the exchange be designed, among other things, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission finds that amending the rules to permit complex option spread strategies that are the net result of combining two or more spread strategies that are currently recognized in the Exchange's margin rules is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) because the amendments will allow the Exchange to set levels of margin that more precisely represent the actual net risk of the option positions in the account and enable customers to implement these strategies more efficiently. 10 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission further finds elimination of the two-dollar standard exercise price interval limitation for listed options and elimination of the definition of “in-or-at-the-money” are consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5). The rules changes should allow specialists and market makers to hedge risk related to their options positions while prohibiting trading in an underlying security that is not related to specialist or market making option activities, or that does not constitute a reasonable hedge. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2004-39), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7525 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52935; File No. SR-PCX-2005-127] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges December 9, 2005. 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 November 25, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” 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 prepared by the Exchange. PCX 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) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change PCX proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges in order to include a provision that deals with royalty, or license fees, that are passed on to market participants on options trades that are part of an Option Strategy Execution. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.pacificex.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose PCX is proposing this change to the PCX Schedule of Rates and Charges so that the Exchange may continue to pass on the full amount of any royalty or license fees to trade participants, even when total transaction fees are capped in association with a defined Options Strategy Execution. PCX has established a cap on the transaction fees it charges to market participants that engage in certain strategy executions, as defined in the PCX Schedule of Fees and Charges. PCX represents that the cap was established because the referenced Options Strategy Executions are generally large volume trades done by professionals whose profit margins are generally narrow. The Exchange caps the transaction fees associated with such executions at $1,000 per strategy execution, with a monthly cap of $50,000 per initiating firm. Certain classes of options listed on PCX have as their underlying issue licensed products that carry a royalty fee on every contract traded. These fees are assessed by the issuing agency, and are not Exchange transaction fees. License fees, or royalty fees, that are charged to the Exchange are passed on to the actual participants executing the trade. Even though some of the fees are passed on, the fee cap would prevent PCX from recovering these fees in their entirety if they were to be included as transaction fees. If royalty fees are included as transaction fees, PCX would face the possibility of having to pay out substantial fees while the fee cap would limit the amount the Exchange would be able to pass on to trade participants. Because of the negative financial implications to the Exchange, PCX will not include license or royalty fees, which are passed on to trade participants in connection with trades that are done as part of an Options Strategy Execution, as part of the transaction fees counting towards both the $1,000 per trade transaction fee cap and the $50,000 per month fee cap. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) 6 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 8 thereunder 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. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-PCX-2005-127 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-127. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of PCX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-127 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2006. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7524 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration

(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in compliance with Pub. L. 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974. (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400. I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Reporting Changes that Affect Your Social Security Payment—20 CFR 404.301-305, .310-311, .330-.333, .335-.341, .350-.352, .370-.371, .401-.402, .408(a), .421-.425, .428-.430, .434-.437, .439-.441, .446-.447, .450-.455, .468—0960-0073. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-1425 to determine continuing entitlement to Title II Social Security benefits and to determine the proper benefit amount. The respondents are Title II beneficiaries receiving SSA retirement, disability or survivor's auxiliary benefits who need to report an event that could affect payments. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 36,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,000 hours. 2. Workers' Compensation/Public Disability Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.408—0960-0247. Section 224 of the Social Security Act provides for the reduction of disability insurance benefits

(DIB)when the combination of DIB and any workers' compensation

(WC)and/or certain Federal, State or local public disability benefits

(PDB)exceeds 80% of the worker's predisability earnings. Form SSA-546 is used to collect the data necessary to determine whether or not the worker's receipt of WC/PDB payments will cause a reduction of DIB. The respondents are applicants for the Title II DIB. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 100,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 25,000 hours. 3. Medicaid Use Report—20 CFR 416.268—0960-0267. The information required by this regulation is used by SSA to determine if an individual is entitled to special Title XVI Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)payments and, consequently, to Medicaid benefits. The respondents are SSI recipients whose payments were stopped based on earnings. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 60,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 3 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,000 hours. 4. Supplemental Security Income Claim Information Notice—20 CFR 416.210—0960-0324. Form SSA-L8050-U3 is used by SSA to ensure that all sources of potential income that can be used to provide for an SSI beneficiary's own support and maintenance are utilized. SSI is intended to supplement other income an individual has available. Respondents are businesses and applicants/recipients of SSI who may be eligible for benefits from public or private programs. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 7,500. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,250 hours. 5. Application Statement for Child's Insurance Benefits—20 CFR 404.350-0368, 404.603, and 416.350—0960-0010. Title II of the Social Security Act provides for the payment of monthly benefits to the children of an insured retired, disabled, or deceased worker, if certain conditions are met. Form SSA-4-BK is used by SSA to collect information needed to determine whether the child or children are entitled to benefits. The respondents are children of the worker or individuals who complete this form on their behalf. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,740,000. *Frequency of Respondents:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 435,000 hours. 6. National Employment Activity and Disability Survey—0960-0666 Background The Ticket to Work

(TTW)program was established by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The program will provide eligible Social Security Disability Insurance

(SSDI)and SSI disability beneficiaries with a Ticket, which can be used to obtain vocational rehabilitation

(VR)or employment services through participating providers, called Employment Networks (ENs). The goal of the TTW program is to assist participants in returning to work at a level above the Substantial Gainful Activity

(SGA)level. The program is expected to increase beneficiary demand for employment-related services and activities. It is also expected to increase the number and diversity of providers in response to the less restrictive participation requirements and increased consumer demand for services. The National Employment Activity and Disability Survey The National Employment Activity and Disability Survey will collect data on the work-related activities of SSI and SSDI beneficiaries as the TTW program, and other initiatives designed to improve beneficiary employment outcomes, are implemented. The TTW Survey is specifically designed to be a significant resource for the formal evaluation of TTW, but SSA anticipates that the survey will provide useful information for a variety of evaluation and policy analysis purposes, especially related to current efforts that attempt to improve return to work. The survey questionnaire focuses on information about beneficiaries and their work-related activities that cannot be obtained from SSA's administrative records. The survey will provide information about:

(1)Beneficiaries who assign their Tickets to ENs, and their experience in the program;

(2)beneficiaries who do not assign their Tickets, and the reasons why they do not, including involuntary non-participants;

(3)the employment outcomes of Ticket users and other beneficiaries; and

(4)the use of employment services by Ticket users and other beneficiaries. The respondents will be selected from SSI and SSDI disabled beneficiaries who meet the Ticket to Work program eligibility requirements. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 5,538. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 47 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 4,338 hours. II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Private Printing and Modification of Prescribed Applications and Other Forms—20 CFR 422.527—0960-0663. This regulation mandates that non-government persons or organizations who wish to reproduce, duplicate, or privately print any application or other form owned by SSA must receive written authorization from the Agency to do so. The respondents are private persons or groups who wish to reproduce, duplicate, or privately print an SSA application or form. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 9. *Frequency of Response:* 36. *Average Burden Per Response:* 8 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 43 hours. 2. Public Information Campaign—0960-0544. SSA sends public information materials ( *e.g.:* public service announcements, news releases, educational tapes) to public broadcasting systems so these media sources can inform the general public about the Agency's various programs and activities. To track media usage of these materials, SSA conducts the Public Information Campaign, a bi-annual solicitation of feedback from the target public media sources via business reply cards. The respondents are public broadcasting systems who are sent information about various SSA programs to disseminate to the public. **Note:** Please note that this collection was accidentally allowed to expire by OMB. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 8,000. *Frequency of Response:* 2. *Average Burden Per Response:* 1 minute. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 267 hours. Dated: December 13, 2005. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7514 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review, Request for Comments; Approval of a New Information Collection Activity, Pilot Training and Experience With Transport Category Rudder Control Systems AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval for a new information collection. The FAA has undertaken an effort to improve aviation safety by collecting data on pilots' training and experience with transport category rudder control systems. A **Federal Register** notice for public comment was published on April 12, 2005, vol 70, #69, page 19144. DATES: Please submit comments by January 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Street on

(202)267-9895. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)*Title:* Pilot Training and Experience with Transport Category Rudder Control Systems. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-xxxx. *Form(s):* None. *Affected Public:* A total of 1,000 pilots. *Frequency:* The information is conducted on a one-time basis. *Estimated Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 500 hours annually. *Abstract:* The FAA has undertaken an effort to improve aviation safety by collecting data on pilots' training and experience with transport category rudder control systems. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2005. Judith D. Street, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Information Systems and Technology Services Staff, ABA-20. [FR Doc. 05-24273 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

5 references not yet in our index