Notices. 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Self-Evaluation)

27,487 words·~125 min read·/register/2007/01/31/07-409

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

BILLING CODE 4312-CD-M INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348 and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review)] Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and the antidumping finding on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Taiwan, as well as revocation of countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

The Commission further determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany and Korea and the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Finally, the Commission determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan, as well as the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from France, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 2 2 Commissioners Charlotte R.

Lane and Stephen Koplan dissenting with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan. Background The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 62324, October 31, 2005), and determined on February 6, 2006, that it would conduct full reviews (70 FR 8874, February 21, 2006). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of public hearings to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** on March 30, 2006 (71 FR 16178). The hearings were held in Washington, DC, on October 17 and 19, 2006, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on January 25, 2007. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3899 (January 2007), entitled *Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom:

Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review).* By order of the Commission. Issued: January 25, 2007. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-1560 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190-0006] Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section; Agency Information Collection Activities Under Review ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review:

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Self-Evaluation). The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection extension is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 2, 2007.

This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. We request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the extension of a currently approved collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). Comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to John Wodatch (phone number and address listed below). If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, contact John Wodatch, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, by calling

(800)514-0301 (Voice) or

(800)514-0383

(TTY)(the Division's ADA Information Line), or write him at U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section—NYA, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. The information collection is listed below:

(1)*Type of information collection:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

(2)*The title of the form/collection:* Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Self-Evaluation).

(3)*The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: State, Local or Tribal Government. Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, State and local governments are required to evaluate their current services, policies, and practices for compliance with the ADA. Under certain circumstances, such entities must also maintain the results of such self-evaluation on file for public review.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 8,000 respondents at 6 hours per self-evaluation.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 48,000 hours annual burden. *If additional information is required contact:* Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: January 26, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1511 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190-0005] Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section; Agency Information Collection Activities Under Review ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Certification of State and Local Government Accessibility Requirements. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection extension is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 2, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. We request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the extension of a currently approved collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(800)514-0301 (Voice) or

(800)514-0383

(1)*Type of information collection:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

(2)*The title of the form/collection:* Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Certification of State and Local Government Accessibility Requirements.

(3)*The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: State or Local Government. Under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, on the application of a State or local government, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (or his or her designee) may certify that a State or local building code or similar ordinance that establishes accessibility requirements

(Code)meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the ADA for accessibility and usability of “places of public accommodation” and “commercial facilities.”

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 10 respondents per year at 32 hours per certification.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 320 hours annual burden. *If additional information is required contact:* Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: January 26, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1512 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190-0004] Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section; Agency Information Collection Activities Under Review ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Transition Plan). The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection extension is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 2, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. We request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the extension of a currently approved collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(800)514-0301 (Voice) or

(800)514-0383

(1)*Type of information collection:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

(2)*The title of the form/collection* : Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Transition Plan).

(3)*The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: State, Local or Tribal Government. Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, State and local governments are required to operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (“program accessibility”). If structural changes to existing facilities are necessary to accomplish program accessibility, a public entity that employs 50 or more persons must develop a “transition plan” setting forth the steps necessary to complete the structural changes. A copy of the transition plan must be made available for public inspection.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 3,000 respondents at 8 hours per transition plan.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 24,000 hours annual burden. *If additional information is required contact:* Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: January 26, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1513 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190-0009] Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section; Agency Information Collection Activities Under Review ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Discrimination Complaint Form. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection extension is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 2, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. We request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(800)514-0301 (Voice) or

(800)514-0383

(1)*Type of information collection:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

(2)*The title of the form/collection:* Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Discrimination Complaint Form.

(3)*The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Individuals alleging discrimination by public entities based on disability. Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an individual who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may, by himself or herself or by an authorized representative, file a complaint. Any Federal agency that receives a complaint of discrimination by a public entity is required to review the complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction under section 504. If the agency does not have jurisdiction, it must determine whether it is the designated agency responsible for complaints filed against that public entity. If the agency does not have jurisdiction under section 504 and is not the designated agency, it must refer the complaint to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then must refer the complaint to the appropriate agency.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 5,000 respondents per year at 0.75 hours per complaint form.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 3,750 hours annual burden. *If additional information is required contact:* Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: January 26, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1514 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [AAG/A Order No. 002-2007] Privacy Act of 1974; Removal of Four Systems of Records Notices Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division (CRM), is removing the published notices of four Privacy Act systems of records: “General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal Division, Central Index File and Associated Records, JUSTICE/CRM-004,” last published on December 11, 1987 at 52 FR 47190; “Index to Names of Attorneys Employed by the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Indicating the Subject of the Memoranda on Criminal Matters They Have Written, JUSTICE/CRM-005,” last published on December 11, 1987 at 52 FR 47191; “Name Card File on Criminal Division Personnel Authorized to Have Access to the Central Criminal Division Records, JUSTICE/CRM-007,” last published on December 11, 1987 at 52 FR 47192; and, “Weekly Statistical Report, JUSTICE/CRM-023,” last published on January 10, 1980 at 45 FR 2195. These system notices are unnecessary because both the systems and the actual records have all been determined to no longer meet any business need of the Criminal Division. In each case the records were destroyed pursuant to the National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule 23. Therefore, the notices for the above-named systems of records are removed from the Department's listing of Privacy Act systems of records notices, effective on the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Dated: January 22, 2007. Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1562 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-14-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [AAG/A Order No. 003-2007] Privacy Act of 1974; Modification of System of Records 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 the Departmentwide system of records entitled, “Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX)” DOJ-012, previously published in full text in the **Federal Register** on July 11, 2005, (70 FR 39790), and amended on December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72315). This system is being modified as follows: The portions of the system of records notice entitled, CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM, CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM, PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEM, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL, SYSTEM MANAGERS AND ADDRESSES, and RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES are being modified to reflect that information in RDEX includes criminal law enforcement information from certain state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in the RDEX system under memoranda of understanding

(MOU)with the Department of Justice. The MOU sets forth policy and procedures for the sharing of law enforcement information by the contributing parties, including for the maintenance, responsibility, and use of shared information. The MOU provides that each contributing party retains sole responsibility of and exclusive control over the content of the information that it contributes to RDEX and establishes strict limitations on the access to information contributed by the parties. This modification is necessary to reflect the inclusion of certain state and local law enforcement information that furthers the law enforcement sharing initiatives that are the basis of the RDEX system. The RDEX system is part of the Department's Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP). The RDEX system includes this information to facilitate regional sharing initiatives which serves to further the LEISP's principal purpose of ensuring that criminal law enforcement information is available for users at all levels of government so that they can more effectively investigate, disrupt, and deter criminal activity, including terrorism, and protect the national security. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is 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, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the system. Therefore, please submit any comments by March 12, 2007. The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments to Mary E. Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 20530-0001 (Room 1400, National Place Building), Facsimile Number 202-307-1853. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department is providing a report of this modification to OMB and appropriate Members of Congress. Dated: January 25, 2007. Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOJ-012 SYSTEM NAME: Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX). CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals covered by this system include individuals who are referred to in potential or actual cases or matters of concern to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as individuals referred to in law enforcement information contributed by certain state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in the RDEX system under memoranda of understanding with the Department of Justice. Because the system contains audit logs regarding queries, individuals who use the system to conduct such queries are also covered. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The system consists of unclassified criminal law enforcement records collected and produced by the BOP, the USMS, the ATF, the DEA, the FBI, and certain state and local law enforcement agencies, including: investigative reports and witness interviews from both open and closed cases; criminal event data (e.g., characteristics of criminal activities and incidents that identify links or patterns); criminal history information (e.g., history of arrests, nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, and release); and identifying information about criminal offenders (e.g., name, address, date of birth, birthplace, physical description). The system also consists of audit logs that contain information regarding queries made of the system. PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEM: This system is maintained for the purpose of ensuring that Department of Justice criminal law enforcement information is available for users at all levels of government so that they can more effectively investigate, disrupt, and deter criminal activity, including terrorism, and protect the national security. RDEX furthers this purpose by consolidating certain law enforcement information from other Department of Justice systems, as well as certain state and local law enforcement information, in order that it may more readily be available for sharing with other law enforcement entities. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records in this system are maintained and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. SYSTEM MANAGERS AND ADDRESSES: [Replace first paragraph with the following:] For the RDEX system generally and for state and local information: Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20535. [Other system managers remain the same.] RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Records in RDEX come directly from the criminal law enforcement files and records systems of the participating Department of Justice components (ATF, BOP, DEA, FBI, and USMS), as well as certain state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the RDEX system under memoranda of understanding with the Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-1567 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FB-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,747] Aerotek Staffing Agency, Kentwood, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 11, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by the State Agency on behalf of workers at Aerotek Staffing Agency, Kentwood, Michigan, working on-site at D-M-E Company, a subsidiary of Milacron, Inc., Charlevoix, Michigan. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active amended certification (TA-W-60,301), which expires on November 8, 2008. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of January, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1470 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,719] Avondale Mills, Inc., Townsend Plant, Graniteville, SC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 9, 2007, in response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers of Avondale Mills, Inc., Townsend Plant, Graniteville, South Carolina. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January, 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1474 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,409] Davis International, Okolona, MS; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of January 2, 2007, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The workers of Davis International, Okolona, Mississippi were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)and denied to apply for ATAA on December 5, 2006. The denial notice will be soon published in the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The group eligibility criteria for the ATAA program that the Department must consider under Section 246 of the Trade Act are: 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 initial ATAA investigation revealed that no workers at the subject firm were 50 years of age or older during the relevant time period and thus criterion

(1)has not been met. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that he was part of the petitioning worker group and that he was also over the age of 50 during the relevant time period. A company official was contacted to confirm the age of all the employees of the subject firm during the relevant time period. The company official did acknowledge the fact that the worker who submitted the request for reconsideration is over the age of 50 and that she made a mistake omitting him from the petitioning worker group during the initial investigation. The official further stated that this worker was the only employee over the age of 50 or older at the subject firm during the relevant time period. When assessing eligibility for ATAA, the Department makes its determinations based on the requirements as outlined in Section 222 of the Trade Act. In particular, the Department considers the relevant employment data for the facility where the petitioning worker group was employed in order to establish whether criterion 1 has been met. For this purpose, the term “significant number” means five percent of the adversely affected workforce or 50 workers, whichever is less, or at least three workers in a firm with less than 50 adversely affected workers. As the total number of workers 50 years of age or older was one employee during the relevant period, criterion

(1)of the eligibility requirements for ATAA has not been met. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of January, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1469 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,640] National Apparel, LLC, San Francisco, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 19, 2006 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of National Apparel, LLC, San Francisco, California. The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petition, filed by three workers, did not contain the signatures of the petitioners. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1473 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 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 12, 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 12, 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. Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 1/15/07 and 1/19/07] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 60762 Specialty Filaments, Inc.

(Wkrs)Middlebury, VT 01/16/07 01/11/07 60763 Enkeboll Co, Inc.

(The)(State) Carson, CA 01/16/07 01/05/07 60764 Lear Corporation

(Wkrs)Madisonville, KY 01/16/07 01/12/07 60765 Woodhead

(Comp)Northbrook, IL 01/16/07 01/05/07 60766 Travel Tags (State) Inver Grove Heights, MN 01/16/07 01/12/07 60767 Portola Tech International

(Comp)WoonSocket, RI 01/16/07 12/22/06 60768 IDT Corporation

(Wkrs)Newark, NJ 01/16/07 01/15/07 60769 Airfoil Technologies International (State) Compton, CA 01/16/07 12/28/06 60770 Regal Cutting Tools, Inc.

(Wkrs)Roscoe, IL 01/16/07 12/15/06 60771 Burlington House Weaving Plant & BH Pioneer Plant

(Comp)Reidsville, NC 01/16/07 01/15/07 60772 Harve Benard (Union) Clifton, NJ 01/16/07 01/12/07 60773 Klausener Furniture Industries, Inc.

(Comp)Asheboro, NC 01/16/07 01/16/07 60774 Rayloc, Inc. (State) Stephenville, TX 01/17/07 01/16/07 60775 Oxbow Machine Products, Inc.

(Comp)Livonia, MI 01/17/07 01/11/07 60776 Kirchmer Corporation

(SEIU)Golden Valley, MN 01/17/07 01/15/07 60777 J and M Plating, Inc. (State) Albion, MI 01/17/07 01/12/07 60778 Northern Expediting Corporation

(Comp)Union, NJ 01/17/07 01/09/07 60779 Kitty Sportswear Corp

(Wkrs)Freeport, NY 01/17/07 01/16/07 60780 Cer-Tek (State) El Paso, TX 01/17/07 01/09/07 60781 Hearth and Home Technologies

(Wkrs)Colville, WA 01/17/07 01/12/07 60782 Emsig Manufacturing Corp.

(Wrks)Long Island City, NY 01/17/07 01/03/07 60783 Lear Corporation (UNITE) Carlisle, PA 01/17/07 01/16/07 60784 Victaulic Company of America

(Wkrs)New Village, NJ 01/18/07 01/17/07 60785 Transportation Reseach Center, Inc.

(Wkrs)East Liberty, OH 01/18/07 12/29/06 60786 Hanes Brands, Inc. (State) Ponce, PR 01/18/07 01/17/07 60787 Ravenwood Specialty Services, Inc. (AFL-CIO) Ravenswood, WV 01/18/07 01/17/07 60788 Heatilator, Inc., Div. of HON Ind.

(Wkrs)Mt. Pleasant, IA 01/18/07 01/16/07 60789 WestPoint Home Transportation

(Comp)Valley, AL 01/19/07 01/19/07 60790 Model Crafts LLC

(Wkrs)Bogalusa, LA 01/19/07 01/18/07 60791 Vintage Virandah (State) Marion, AR 01/19/07 01/18/07 60792 Dexter Centerless Grinding LLC

(Comp)Ann Arbor, MI 01/19/07 01/09/07 60793 Weyerhaeuser

(WCIW)Aberdeen, WA 01/19/07 01/02/07 [FR Doc. E7-1471 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-56,480] Tyco Electronics, Tyco Printed Circuits Group Now Known as TTM Technologies, Inc., Dallas, OR; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 17, 2005, applicable to workers of Tyco Electronics, Tyco Printed Circuits Group, Dallas, Oregon. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11704). 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 printed circuit boards. New information shows that in October 2006, TTM Technologies, Inc. purchased the Tyco Printed Circuit Group of Tyco Electronics and is now known as TTM Technologies. Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance

(UI)tax account for TTM Technologies, Inc. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Tyco Electronics, Tyco Printed Circuits Group, now known as TTM Technologies who were adversely affected by increased customer imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-56,480 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Tyco Electronics, Tyco Printed Circuits Group, now known as TTM Technologies, Dallas, Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 1, 2004, through February 17, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of January 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1472 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,797] Via Information Tools Incorporated, Troy, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 22, 2007 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of VIA Information Tools Incorporated, Troy, Michigan. The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petition was signed by one dislocated worker. A petition filed by workers requires three

(3)signatures. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1468 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The DOL, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95), 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Fair Labor Standards Act Recordkeeping Requirements. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before April 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, *et seq.* , sets the Federal minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards of most general application. *See* 29 U.S.C. 206-207; 211-212. FLSA requirements apply to employers of employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce and of employees in certain enterprises, including employees of a public agency; however, the FLSA contains exemptions that apply to employees in certain types of employment. See, 29 U.S.C. 213, *et al.* The DOL has promulgated Regulations 29 CFR part 516 to establish the basic FLSA recordkeeping requirements. The DOL has also issued specific sections of Regulations 29 CFR parts 505, 519, 520, 525, 530, 548, 551, 552, 553, and 570 to supplement the part 516 requirements and to provide for the maintenance of records relating to various FLSA exemptions and special provisions. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The DOL is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The DOL seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to enforce the provisions of the FLSA. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Fair Labor Standards Act Recordkeeping Requirements. *OMB Number:* 1215-0017. *Affected Public:* Business of other for-profit; Individuals or households; Farms; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Weekly. *Annual Respondents:* 8,864,534. *Annual Responses:* 11,177,669. *Average Time per Recordkeeping:* 5 minutes. *Total Burden Hours:* 988,108. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1486 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS)Subcommittee Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on February 28, 2007, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland in Room T-2B3. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, February 28, 2007—8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business The Subcommittee will review the new SRP Section 15.9, “BWR Stability,” and Section 15.0, “Accident Analyses—Introduction.” The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: January 25, 2007. Eric A. Thornsbury, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-1541 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS)Subcommittee Meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on February 22, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, February 22, 2007—8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposed Revisions to SRP Section 4.2, “Fuel Designs.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors, representatives of the nuclear industry, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (telephone 301/415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:15 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 to the agenda. Dated: January 25, 2007. Eric A. Thornsbury, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-1543 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-357] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States—Subsidies and Other Domestic Support for Corn and Other Agricultural Products AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on January 8, 2007, Canada requested consultations with the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”) regarding U.S. domestic support measures for corn and other agricultural products. That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS357/1. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the consultations, comments should be submitted on or before February 28, 2007 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0705@ustr.eop.gov* , with “Corn Subsidy (Canada) (DS357)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yocis, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC,

(202)395-6150. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA)(19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. In an effort to provide additional opportunity for comment, USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes* (“DSU”). If such consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within six to nine months after it is established. Major Issues Raised by Canada In its consultation request, Canada raises three major groups of issues. First, Canada asserts that domestic support provided by the United States to producers of corn has caused and threatens to cause serious prejudice to the interests of Canada by causing and threatening to cause price suppression in the Canadian market for corn, in breach of Article 5(c) and 6.3(c) of the WTO *Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures* (“SCM Agreement”). The domestic support programs identified by Canada include direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and marketing loans under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (“FSRI Act”), production flexibility contracts and marketing loans under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (“FAIR Act”), market loss assistance (“MLA”) payments under a number of legislative enactments from 1998 to 2001, and export credit guarantees provided under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, the General Sales Manager (“GSM-102”) program, and the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (“SCGP”). Second, Canada claims that support for corn and other agricultural products not included in the U.S. WTO schedule of agricultural export subsidy commitments provided under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, the GSM-102 program, and the SCGP, are export subsidies prohibited under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement and provided in violation of Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1, and 10.1 of the WTO *Agreement on Agriculture.* Third, Canada alleges that the United States has provided support to domestic agricultural producers in excess of U.S. commitments with respect to the Aggregate Measurement of Support (“AMS”) as described in Article 6.2 of the WTO *Agreement on Agriculture* and the U.S. WTO schedule of commitments. According to Canada, the calculation of the U.S. AMS should include direct payments and counter-cyclical payments under the FSRI Act for each of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybeans, and other oilseeds, as well as production flexibility contracts under the FAIR Act and MLAs for each of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, and rice. Canada considers that, if such payments are included in the calculation of the U.S. AMS, the United States would be in breach of Article 3.2 of the *Agreement on Agriculture* for domestic support provided in each of the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0705@ustr.eop.gov* , with “Corn Subsidy (Canada) (DS357)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter —

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “Submitted in Confidence” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. submissions to that panel, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants in the dispute, as well as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-357, Canada Corn-AMS Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Daniel Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-1563 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Pendency of Request for Exemption From the Bond/Escrow Requirement Relating to the Sale of Assets by an Employer Who Contributes to a Multiemployer Plan; Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of pendency of request. SUMMARY: This notice advises interested persons that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has received a request from Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC for an exemption from the bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, with respect to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan. Section 4204(a)(1) provides that the sale of assets by an employer that contributes to a multiemployer pension plan will not constitute a complete or partial withdrawal from the plan if the transaction meets certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the purchaser post a bond or deposit money in escrow for the five-plan-year period beginning after the sale. The PBGC is authorized to grant individual and class exemptions from this requirement. Before granting an exemption, the statute and PBGC regulations require PBGC to give interested persons an opportunity to comment on the exemption request. The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of the exemption request and solicit their views on it. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or delivered to Suite 340 at the above address. Comments also may be submitted electronically through the PBGC's Web site at *reg.comments@pbgc.gov* or by fax to 202-326-4112. The PBGC will make all comments available on its Web site, *http://www.pbgc.gov.* Copies of the comments and the non-confidential portions of the request may be obtained by writing to the PBGC's Communications and Public Affairs Department at Suite 1200 at the above address or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Field, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4020. (For TTY/TTD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4020.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“ERISA” or “the Act”), provides that a bona fide arm's-length sale of assets of a contributing employer to an unrelated party will not be considered a withdrawal if three conditions are met. These conditions, enumerated in section 4204(a)(1)(A)-(C), are that—

(A)The purchaser has an obligation to contribute to the plan with respect to covered operations for substantially the same number of contribution base units for which the seller was obligated to contribute;

(B)The purchaser obtains a bond or places an amount in escrow, for a period of five plan years after the sale, equal to the greater of the seller's average required annual contribution to the plan for the three plan years preceding the year in which the sale occurred or the seller's required annual contribution for the plan year preceding the year in which the sale occurred (the amount of the bond or escrow is doubled if the plan is in reorganization in the year in which the sale occurred); and

(C)The contract of sale provides that if the purchaser withdraws from the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale and fails to pay any of its liability to the plan, the seller shall be secondarily liable for the liability it (the seller) would have had but for section 4204. The bond or escrow described above would be paid to the plan if the purchaser withdraws from the plan or fails to make any required contributions to the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale. Additionally, section 4204(b)(1) provides that if a sale of assets is covered by section 4204, the purchaser assumes by operation of law the contribution record of the seller for the plan year in which the sale occurred and the preceding four plan years. Section 4204(c) of ERISA authorizes the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) to grant individual or class variances or exemptions from the purchaser's bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) when warranted. The legislative history of section 4204 indicates a Congressional intent that the statute be administered in a manner that assures protection of the plan with the least practicable intrusion into normal business transactions. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., S. 1076, *The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980: Summary and Analysis of Considerations* 16 (Comm. Print, April 1980); 128 Cong. Rec. S10117 (July 29, 1980). The granting of a variance or exemption from the bond/escrow requirement does not constitute a finding by the PBGC that a particular transaction satisfies the other requirements of section 4204(a)(1). Under the PBGC's regulation on variances for sales of assets (29 CFR part 4204), a request for a variance or exemption from the bond/escrow requirement under any of the tests established in the regulation (§§ 4204.12 and 4204.13) is to be made to the plan in question. The PBGC will consider variance or exemption requests only when the request is not based on satisfaction of one of the four regulatory tests under regulation §§ 4204.12 and 4204.13 or when the parties assert that the financial information necessary to show satisfaction of one of the regulatory tests is privileged or confidential financial information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (Freedom of Information Act). Under § 4204.22 of the regulation, the PBGC shall approve a request for a variance or exemption if it determines that approval of the request is warranted, in that it—

(1)Would more effectively or equitably carry out the purposes of Title IV of the Act; and

(2)Would not significantly increase the risk of financial loss to the plan. Section 4204(c) of ERISA and section 4204.22(b) of the regulation require the PBGC to publish a notice of the pendency of a request for a variance or exemption in the **Federal Register** , and to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed variance or exemption. The Request The PBGC has received a request from the Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC (the “Buyer”) for an exemption from the bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) with respect to its purchase of the Washington Nationals from Baseball Expos, L.P. (the “Seller”) on April 24, 2006. In the request, the Buyer represents among other things that: 1. The Seller was obligated to contribute to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) for certain employees of the sold operations. 2. The Buyer has agreed to assume the obligation to contribute to the Plan for substantially the same number of contribution base units as the Seller. 3. The Seller has agreed to be secondarily liable for any withdrawal liability it would have had with respect to the sold operations (if not for section 4204) should the Buyer withdraw from the Plan and fail to pay its withdrawal liability. 4. The estimated amount of the withdrawal liability of the Seller with respect to the operations subject to the sale is $14,454,124. 5. The amount of the bond/escrow established under section 4204(a)(1)(B) is $2,803,040. 6. The Major League Baseball Clubs (the “Clubs”) have established the Major League Central Fund (the “Central Fund”) pursuant to the Major League Baseball Constitution. Under this agreement, contributions to the Plan for all participating employers are paid by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball from the Central Fund on behalf of each participating employer in satisfaction of the employer's pension liability under the Plan's funding agreement. The monies in the Central Fund are derived directly from

(i)gate receipts from All-Star games;

(ii)radio and television revenue from World Series, League Championship Series, Division Series, All-Star Games, and

(iii)certain other radio and television revenue, including revenues from foreign broadcasts, regular, spring training and exhibition games (“Revenues”). 7. In support of the exemption request, the requester asserts that: “The Plan is funded directly from Revenues which are paid from the Central Fund directly to the Plan without passing through the hands of any of the Clubs. Therefore the Plan enjoys a substantial degree of security with respect to contributions on behalf of the Clubs. A change in ownership of a Club does not affect the obligation of the Central Fund to fund the Plan out of the Revenues. As such, approval of this exemption request would not increase the risk of financial loss to the Plan.” 8. A complete copy of the request was sent to the Plan and to the Major League Baseball Players Association by certified mail, return receipt requested. Comments All interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the pending exemption request to the above address. All comments will be made a part of the record. The PBGC will make the comments received available on its Web site, *www.pbgc.gov.* Copies of the comments and the non-confidential portions of the request may be obtained by writing or visiting the PBGC's Communications and Public Affairs Department

(CPAD)at the above address or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. Issued at Washington, DC, on this 24th of January, 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Interim Director. [FR Doc. E7-1505 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7708-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: RI 30-1 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 30-1, Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, is used by persons who are not yet age 60 and who are receiving disability annuity and are subject to inquiry as to their medical condition as OPM deems reasonably necessary. RI 30-1 collects information as to whether the disabling condition has changed. Approximately 8,000 RI 30-1 forms will be completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The annual burden is 8,000 hours. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on

(202)606-8358, FAX

(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov. Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,

(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-1542 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection: RI 30-10 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for extension of a currently approved information collection. RI 30-10, Disabled Dependent Questionnaire, is used to collect sufficient information about the medical condition and earning capacity for the Office of Personnel Management to be able to determine whether a disabled adult child is eligible for health benefits coverage and/or survivor annuity payments under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Approximately 2,500 RI 30-10 forms are completed annually. The form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 2,500 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on

(202)606-8358, FAX

(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,

(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-1545 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Forms RI 20-7 and RI 30-3 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 20-7, Representative Payee Application, is used by the Civil Service Retirement System

(CSRS)and the Federal Employees Retirement System

(FERS)to collect information from persons applying to be fiduciaries for annuitants or survivor annuitants who appear to be incapable of handling their own funds or for minor children. RI 30-3, Information Necessary for a Competency Determination, collects medical information regarding the annuitant's competency for OPM's use in evaluating the annuitant's condition. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We estimate 12,480 RI 20-7 forms are completed annually. The form requires approximately 30 minutes for completion. The annual burden is 6,240 hours. Approximately 250 RI 30-3 forms will be completed annually. Each form requires approximately 1 hour for completion. The annual burden is 250 hours. The total annual burden is 6,490. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on

(202)606-8358, FAX

(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,

(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-1564 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management (OPM). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This gives notice of OPM decisions granting authority to make appointments under Schedules A, B, and C in the excepted service as required by 5 CFR 6.6 and 213.103. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Penn, Executive Resources Services Group, Center for Human Resources, Division for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, 202-606-2246. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appearing in the listing below are the individual authorities established under Schedules A, B, and C between December 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published each year. Schedule A No Schedule A appointments were approved for December 2006. Schedule B No Schedule B appointments were approved for December 2006. Schedule C The following Schedule C appointments were approved during December 2006. Section 213.3304 Department of State DSGS61200 Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Effective December 06, 2006. DSGS61202 Senior Advisor to the Coordinator for International Information Programs. Effective December 06, 2006. DSGS61300 Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary for Management. Effective December 13, 2006. DSGS61203 Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Effective December 19, 2006. DSGS61089 Supervisory Protocol Officer (Visits) to the Chief of Protocol. Effective December 22, 2006. DSGS61205 Protocol Officer (Visits) to the Chief of Protocol. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3305 Department of the Treasury DYGS00479 Speechwriter to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Effective December 08, 2006. DYGS00430 Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Effective December 15, 2006. DYGS00480 Policy Advisor to the Secretary. Effective December 22, 2006. DYGS00481 Senior Counselor to the Assistant Secretary (Terrorist Financing). Effective December 29, 2006. Section 213.3306 Department of Defense DDGS17004 Speechwriter to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Effective December 14, 2006. DDGS17001 Speechwriter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs. Effective December 20, 2006. DDGS17002 Confidential Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3307 Department of the Army DWGS60028 Personal and Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment). Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3309 Department of the Air Force DFGS07001 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) for Industrial Relations. Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3310 Department of Justice DJGS00323 Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General (Legal Policy). Effective December 04, 2006. DJGS00065 Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Justice Programs. Effective December 15, 2006. DJGS00066 Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration. Effective December 19, 2006. Section 213.3311 Department of Homeland Security DMGS00596 Associate Director for White House Actions and Policy Coordinating Committee Coordinator to the Executive Secretary. Effective December 06, 2006. DMGS00595 Director of Homeland Security Council/National Security Council/White House Actions and Interagency Coordinator to the Executive Secretary. Effective December 06, 2006. DMGS00597 Director of Communications, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to the Director, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Effective December 11, 2006. DMGS00598 Legislative Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 11, 2006. DMGS00599 Legislative Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 11, 2006. DMGS00600 Confidential Assistant to the Under Secretary for Protocol and Advance Briefings to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00601 Legislative Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00602 Director of Communications to the Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00603 International Policy Analyst to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00605 Special Assistant for Strategic Communications and Public Relations to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00607 Business Liaison to the Assistant Secretary for Private Sector. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00608 International Policy Analyst to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. Effective December 20, 2006. DMGS00611 Special Assistant to the White House Liaison and Advisor. Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3312 Department of the Interior DIGS01080 Assistant Director-Scheduling and Advance to the Director-Scheduling and Advance. Effective December 08, 2006. DIGS01081 Associate Director to the Director, Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Effective December 13, 2006. DIGS01083 White House Liaison to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 19, 2006. DIGS01085 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. Effective December 20, 2006. DIGS06001 Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Land Management. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3313 Department of Agriculture DAGS00865 Confidential Assistant to the Administrator. Effective December 06, 2006. DAGS00869 Press Secretary to the Director of Communications. Effective December 14, 2006. DAGS00868 Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Rural Housing Service. Effective December 22, 2006. DAGS00871 Staff Assistant to the Administrator, Farm Service Agency. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3314 Department of Commerce DCGS00655 Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3315 Department of Labor DLGS60093 Staff Assistant to the Counselor in the Office of the Secretary. Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3316 Department of Health and Human Services DHGS60436 Associate Commissioner to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Effective December 20, 2006. DHGS60027 Deputy Director for Scheduling. Effective December 21, 2006. DHGS60238 Regional Director, Boston, Massachusetts, Region I to the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 29, 2006. Section 213.3317 Department of Education DBGS00570 Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Relations and Strategic Communications. Effective December 01, 2006. DBGS00568 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and State Technical Assistance to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective December 07, 2006. DBGS00574 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Colleges to the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education. Effective December 06, 2006. DBGS00576 Special Assistant to the Director, Scheduling and Advance Staff. Effective December 07, 2006. DBGS00571 Confidential Assistant to the Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary. Effective December 08, 2006. DBGS00573 Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Effective December 08, 2006. DBGS00575 Confidential Assistant to the Director, White House Liaison. Effective December 08, 2006. DBGS00572 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education. Effective December 11, 2006. DBGS00569 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective December 14, 2006. DBGS00577 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Effective December 19, 2006. DBGS00578 Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective December 20, 2006. DBGS00579 Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Effective December 22, 2006. DBGS00581 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3318 Environmental Protection Agency EPGS06034 Deputy Speech Writer to the Associate Administrator for Public Affairs. Effective December 11, 2006. EPGS06035 Advance Specialist to the Director of Advance. Effective December 11, 2006. EPGS06032 Advance Specialist to the Director of Advance. Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3331 Department of Energy DEGS00547 Scheduler to the Secretary to the Director, Office of Scheduling and Advance. Effective December 12, 2006. DEGS00548 Staff Assistant to the General Counsel. Effective December 22, 2006. DEGS00549 Senior Advisor to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. Effective December 22, 2006. DEGS00553 Special Assistant to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. Effective December 29, 2006. Section 213.3332 Small Business Administration SBGS00607 White House Liaison to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 01, 2006. Section 213.3348 National Aeronautics and Space Administration NNGS00177 Writer/Editor to the Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning. Effective December 22, 2006. NNGS00179 Legislative Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs. Effective December 22, 2006. Section 213.3384 Department of Housing and Urban Development DUGS60039 Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective December 20, 2006. Section 213.3394 Department of Transportation DTGS60324 Director for Scheduling and Advance to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 22, 2006. DTGS60317 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs. Effective December 29, 2006. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff/Director of External Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-1454 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-43-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Summary:* In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board

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

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Title and purpose of information collection:* *Application for Survivor Insurance Annuities:* OMB 3220-0030. Under Section 2(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), monthly survivor annuities are payable to surviving widow(er)s, parents, unmarried children, and in certain cases, divorced wives (husbands), mothers (fathers), remarried widow(er)s, and grandchildren of deceased railroad employees. The collection obtains the information required by the RRB to determine entitlement to and the amount of the annuity applied for. The RRB currently utilizes Form(s) AA-17, Application for Widow(ers) Annuity, AA-17b Applications for Determination of Widow(er) Disability, AA-17cert, Application Summary and Certification, AA-18, Application for Mother's/Father's and Child's Annuity, AA-19, Application for Child's Annuity, AA-19a, Application for Determination of Child Disability, and AA-20, Application for Parent's Annuity to obtain the necessary information. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain benefits. The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes to all of the forms in the information collection. *Estimate of Annual Respondent Burden:* The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows: Form #(s) Annual responses Time

(min)Burden

(hrs)AA-17 (manual, without assistance) 150 47 113 AA-17b (with assistance) 380 40 253 AA-17b (without assistance) 20 50 17 AA-17cert 3,265 20 1,088 AA-18 (manual, without assistance) 12 47 9 AA-19 (manual, without assistance) 9 47 7 AA-19a (with assistance) 285 45 214 AA-19a (without assistance) 15 65 16 AA-20 (manual, without assistance) 1 47 1 *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at

(312)751-3363 or send an e-mail request to *Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV.* Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or send an e-mail to *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV.* Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1466 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 154; SEC File No. 270-438; OMB Control No. 3235-0495. Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The federal securities laws generally prohibit an issuer, underwriter, or dealer from delivering a security for sale unless a prospectus meeting certain requirements accompanies or precedes the security. Rule 154 (17 CFR 230.154) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (the “Securities Act”) permits, under certain circumstances, delivery of a single prospectus to investors who purchase securities from the same issuer and share the same address (“householding”) to satisfy the applicable prospectus delivery requirements. 1 The purpose of Rule 154 is to reduce the amount of duplicative prospectuses delivered to investors sharing the same address. 1 The Securities Act requires the delivery of prospectuses to investors who buy securities from an issuer or from underwriters or dealers who participate in a registered distribution of securities. *See* Securities Act sections 2(a)(10), 4(1), 4(3), 5(b) (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10), 77d(1), 77d(3), 77e(b)); see also Rule 174 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.174) (regarding the prospectus delivery obligation of dealers); Rule 15c2-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.15c2-8) (prospectus delivery obligations of brokers and dealers). Under Rule 154, a prospectus is considered delivered to all investors at a shared address, for purposes of the federal securities laws, if the person relying on the rule delivers the prospectus to the shared address and the investors consent to the delivery of a single prospectus. The rule applies to prospectuses and prospectus supplements. Currently, the rule permits householding of all prospectuses by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer relying on the rule if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the issuer, underwriter, or dealer has obtained from each investor written or implied consent to householding. 2 The rule requires issuers, underwriters, or dealers that wish to household prospectuses with implied consent to send a notice to each investor stating that the investors in the household will receive one prospectus in the future unless the investors provide contrary instructions. In addition, at least once a year, issuers, underwriters, or dealers, relying on Rule 154 for the householding of prospectuses relating to open-end mutual funds, must explain to investors who have provided written or implied consent how they can revoke their consent. Preparing and sending the initial notice and the annual explanation of the right to revoke are collections of information. 2 Rule 154 permits the householding of prospectuses that are delivered electronically to investors only if delivery is made to a shared electronic address and the investors give written consent to householding. Implied consent is not permitted in such a situation. See Rule 154(b)(4). The rule allows issuers, underwriters, or dealers to household prospectuses and prospectus supplements if certain conditions are met. Among the conditions with which a person relying on the rule must comply are providing notice to each investor that only one prospectus will be sent to the household and, in the case of issuers that are open-end mutual funds, providing to each investor who consents to householding an annual explanation of the right to revoke consent to the delivery of a single prospectus to multiple investors sharing an address. The purpose of the notice and annual explanation requirements of the rule is to ensure that investors who wish to receive individual copies of shareholder reports are able to do so. Although Rule 154 is not limited to investment companies, the Commission believes that it is used mainly by open-end mutual funds and by broker-dealers that deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission is unable to estimate the number of issuers other than mutual funds that rely on the rule. The Commission estimates that, as of September 2006, there are approximately 2,400 open-end mutual funds, approximately 200 of which engage in direct marketing and therefore deliver their own prospectuses. The Commission estimates that each direct-marketed mutual fund will spend an average of 20 hours per year complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 4,000 hours. The Commission estimates that each direct-marketed fund will also spend 1 hour complying with the explanation of the right to revoke requirement of the rule, for a total of 200 hours. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 361 broker-dealers that carry customer accounts and, therefore, may be required to deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission estimates that each affected broker-dealer will spend, on average, approximately 20 hours complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 7,220 hours. Each broker-dealer will also spend 1 hour complying with the annual explanation of the right to revoke requirement, for a total of 361 hours. Therefore, the total number of respondents for Rule 154 is 561 (200 mutual funds plus 361 broker-dealers), and the estimated total hour burden is 11,781 hours (4,200 hours for mutual funds plus 7,581 hours for broker-dealers). The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. Responses to the collections of information will not be kept confidential. The rule does not require these records be retained for any specific period of time. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 22, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1507 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 12b-1; SEC File No. 270-188; OMB Control No. 3235-0212. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 12b-1 (17 CFR 270.12b-1) permits a registered open-end investment company (“mutual fund”) to distribute its own shares and pay the expenses of distribution out of the mutual fund's assets provided, among other things, that the mutual fund adopts a written plan (“Rule 12b-1 plan”) and has in writing any agreements relating to the implementation of the Rule 12b-1 plan. The rule in part requires that

(i)the adoption or material amendment of a Rule 12b-1 plan be approved by the mutual fund's directors and shareholders;

(ii)the board review quarterly reports of amounts spent under the Rule 12b-1 plan; and

(iii)the board consider continuation of the Rule 12b-1 plan at least annually. Rule 12b-1 also requires funds relying on the rule to preserve for six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, copies of the Rule 12b-1 plan, related agreements and reports, as well as minutes of board meetings that describe the factors considered and the basis for adopting or continuing a Rule 12b-1 plan. The board and shareholder approval requirements of Rule 12b-1 are designed to ensure that fund shareholders and directors receive adequate information to evaluate and approve a Rule 12b-1 plan. The requirement of quarterly reporting to the board is designed to ensure that the Rule 12b-1 plan continues to benefit the fund and its shareholders. The recordkeeping requirements of the rule are necessary to enable Commission staff to oversee compliance with the rule. The number of hours required to comply with Rule 12b-1 will vary considerably depending on several factors, including the complexity of the plan and the number of classes of fund shares covered by the plan, and is expected to be higher in the first year following adoption of the proposed amendments than in subsequent years. Based on information filed with the Commission by funds, Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 6,536 mutual fund portfolios with Rule 12b-1 plans. Rule 12b-1 requires the board of each fund with a Rule 12b-1 plan to

(i)review quarterly reports of amounts spent under the plan, and

(ii)annually consider the plan's continuation (which generally is combined with the fourth quarterly review);

(iii)have each fund document the policies and procedures it has implemented to enable it to effect portfolio securities transactions through an executing broker that also distributes the fund's shares, and

(iv)approve those policies and procedures. The number of annual responses per fund portfolio will be four per year. Thus, there will be an estimated 26,144 industry responses (6,536 fund portfolios × 4 responses per fund portfolio = 26,144 responses) in the first year and in each subsequent year. Thus, we estimate that there will be an average of 26,144 industry responses per year over the three year period for which we are requesting approval of the information collection burden. Based on conversations with fund industry representatives, Commission staff estimates that for each of the 6,536 mutual fund portfolios that currently have a Rule 12b-1 plan, the average annual burden of complying with the rule is 100 hours to maintain the plan. This estimate takes into account the time needed to prepare quarterly reports to the board of directors, the board's consideration of those reports, and the board's annual consideration of the plan's continuation. The total burden hours per year for all fund portfolios to comply with current information collection requirements under Rule 12b-1, is therefore estimated to be 653,600 hours (6,536 fund portfolios × 100 hours per fund portfolio = 653,600 hours). The annual cost of the hourly burden per fund under the rule is estimated to be $11,135.00. Thus, we estimate that the total annual cost to all funds of the Rule 12b-1 hour burden is $72,778,360.00 (6,536 fund portfolios with Rule 12b-1 plans × $11,135.00 per fund portfolio = $72,778,360.00). If a currently operating fund seeks to

(i)adopt a new Rule 12b-1 plan or

(ii)materially increase the amount it spends for distribution under its Rule 12b-1 plan, Rule 12b-1 requires that the fund obtain shareholder approval. As a consequence, the fund will incur the cost of a proxy. Based on conversations with fund industry representatives, Commission staff estimates that approximately three funds per year prepare a proxy in connection with the adoption or material amendment of a Rule 12b-1 plan. The staff further estimates that the cost of each fund's proxy is $30,000. Thus the total annual cost burden of Rule 12b-1 to the fund industry is $90,000 (3 funds requiring a proxy × $30,000 per proxy). The collections of information required by Rule 12b-1 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Notices to the Commission will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov;* and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 22, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1520 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55165] Order Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 608(e) Thereunder Extending a de minimis Exemption for Transactions in Certain Exchange-Traded Funds From the Trade-Through Provisions of the Intermarket Trading System January 25, 2007. This order extends, through March 4, 2007, a *de minimis* exemption to the provisions of the Intermarket Trading System Plan (“ITS Plan”), 1 a national market system plan, 2 governing intermarket trade-throughs that currently is due to expire on February 4, 2007. The *de minimis* exemption was originally issued by the Commission on August 28, 2002 3 and extended on May 30, 2003, 4 on March 3, 2004, 5 on December 3, 2004, 6 on September 6, 2005, 7 and on June 28, 2006. 8 1 The self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) participating in the ITS Plan include the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (formerly the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. (formerly the Pacific Exchange, Inc.), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the “participants”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983). 2 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) Rule 608(c) (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2(d)), 17 CFR 242.608(c), promulgated under Section 11A, 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, of the Act requires each SRO to comply with, and enforce compliance by its members and their associated persons with, the terms of any effective national market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant. Rule 608(e) (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2(f)), 17 CFR 242.608(e), under the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any SRO, member of an SRO, or specified security from the requirement of the rule if the Commission determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national market system. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46428 (August 28, 2002), 67 FR 56607 (September 4, 2002) (the “August 2002 Order”). The August 2002 Order granted relief through June 4, 2003. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47950 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 33748 (June 5, 2003) (the “May 2003 Order”). The May 2003 Order granted relief through March 4, 2004. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49356 (March 3, 2004), 69 FR 11057 (March 9, 2004) (the “March 2004 Order”). The March 2004 Order granted relief through December 4, 2004. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50795 (December 3, 2004), 69 FR 71445 (December 9, 2004) (the “December 2004 Order”). The December 2004 Order granted relief through September 4, 2005. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52382 (September 6, 2005), 70 FR 53695 (September 9, 2005) (the “September 2005 Order”). The September 2005 Order granted relief through June 28, 2006. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54063 (June 28, 2006), 71 FR 38433 (July 6, 2006) (the “June 2006 Order”). The June 2006 Order granted relief through February 4, 2007. Specifically, this order continues the *de minimis* exemption from compliance with Section 8(d)(i) of the ITS Plan with respect to two specific exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), the Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ETF (“SPY”). 9 By its terms, the June 2006 Order continued the exemption from the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan of any transactions in the two ETFs that are effected at prices at or within three cents away from the best bid and offer quoted in the Consolidated Quote System (“CQS”) through February 4, 2007. 9 The Commission limited the *de minimis* exemption to these two securities because they share certain characteristics that may make immediate execution of their shares highly desirable to certain investors. In particular, trading in the two ETFs is highly liquid and market participants may value an immediate execution at a displayed price more than the opportunity to obtain a slightly better price. Unlike prior orders, the December 2004, September 2005, and June 2006 extensions of the *de minimis* exemption applied only to the DIA and the SPY, and not the QQQ, because, on December 1, 2004, trading of the QQQ transferred from the American Stock Exchange to Nasdaq, and thus trades in the QQQ ceased to be subject to the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan. Accordingly, an exemption for the QQQ was no longer necessary. *See* December 2004 Order, September 2005 Order, and June 2006 Order. In the Commission's previous orders to issue and extend the *de minimis* exemption, 10 the Commission discussed its basis for determining that the *de minimis* exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national market system. In the June 2006 Order, the Commission further noted that: 10 *See supra* notes 3 to 8. In March 2004 and in May 2003, the Commission extended the three cent *de minimis* exemption for additional nine-month periods, in order to assess trading data associated with the *de minimis* exemption and to consider whether to adopt the *de minimis* exemption on a permanent basis, to adopt some other alternative solution, or to allow the exemption to expire. As a result of its review of trading data associated with the *de minimis* exemption, the Commission has proposed, as part of its market structure initiatives, Regulation NMS under the Act, which would include a new rule relating to trade-throughs. On April 6, 2005, the Commission approved Regulation NMS under the Act. 11 In Regulation NMS, the Commission adopted an approach that, among other things, protects only automated quotations and excludes manual quotations from trade-through protection, and renders the *de minimis* exemption unnecessary. Given the significant systems and other changes necessary to implement Rule 610 and Rule 611, 12 the Commission originally established delayed compliance dates for Rule 610 and Rule 611, the first of which was scheduled to begin on June 29, 2006. 13 In the September 2005 Order, the Commission stated that until Regulation NMS is implemented, the reasons for maintaining the *de minimis* exemption in effect continue to be valid, and thus the Commission extended the *de minimis* exemption though June 28, 2006, which was the date before the initial compliance date for Rule 610 and Rule 611. 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). 12 Rule 610 generally prohibits national securities exchanges and national securities associations from imposing unfairly discriminatory terms that prevent or inhibit access to quotations, and establishes a limit on access fees, and requires each national securities exchange and national securities association to adopt, maintain, and enforce written rules that prohibit their members from engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying quotations that lock or cross protected quotations. Rule 611 requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of trades at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed by other trading centers, subject to an applicable exception. 13 *See* supra note 11. On May 18, 2006, the Commission extended the compliance dates for Rule 610 and Rule 611 to give trading centers additional time to finalize the development of their new or modified trading systems, and to give the securities industry sufficient time to establish the necessary access to such trading systems. 14 The initial compliance date was extended to a series of five dates, beginning on October 16, 2006, for different functional stages of compliance, with February 5, 2007 (the “Trading Phase Date”) being the final date for full operation of Regulation NMS-compliant trading systems for initial trade-through protection under Rule 611, as described in the First NMS Extension Release. The Commission also extended the *de minimis* exemption through February 4, 2007, which was the day before the Trading Phase Date. 15 14 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71 FR 30037 (May 24, 2006) (“First NMS Extension Release”). 15 *See* supra note 8. On January 24, 2007, the Commission extended the Trading Phase Date to March 5, 2007. 16 Therefore, to maintain the status quo and avoid requiring market participants to make short-term trading or programming changes pending the extended implementation period for Rule 610 and Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, it is appropriate to extend the *de minimis* exemption through March 4, 2007, the day before the extended Trading Phase Date. 17 The Commission emphasizes, as it did in the previous orders, 18 that the *de minimis* exemption does not relieve brokers and dealers of their best execution obligations under the federal securities laws and SRO rules. 16 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55160 (January 24, 2007) (“Second NMS Extension Release”). To reflect the extended Trading Phase Date and avoid coinciding with major trading days in June 2007, the Commission also extended the Pilot Stocks Phase Date (as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release) until July 9, 2007, and the All Stocks Phase Date (as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release) until August 20, 2007. In contrast, the Specifications Date (as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release) of October 16, 2006 has already passed and was not extended. In addition, the Completion Date (as defined in the Second NMS Extension Release) of October 8, 2007 was not changed . 17 The Commission expects most trading centers to be operating consistent with the requirements of Rule 611 by the Trading Phase Date. 18 *See supra* notes 3 to 8. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608(e) thereunder, 19 that participants of the ITS Plan and their members are hereby exempt from Section 8(d) of the ITS Plan during the period covered by this Order with respect to transactions in DIAs and SPYs that are executed at a price that is no more than three cents lower than the highest bid displayed in CQS and no more than three cents higher than the lowest offer displayed in CQS. This Order extends the *de minimis* exemption from February 5, 2007 through March 4, 2007. 19 17 CFR 242.608(e). By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1475 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55163; File No. SR-Amex-2007-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Establishment of a Pilot Program Increasing Position and Exercise Limits for Options on the iShares® Russell 2000® Index Fund January 24, 2007. 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 January 22, 2007, 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 and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. On January 22, 2007, Amex submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. Amex has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 904 to exempt options on the iShares® Russell 2000® Index Fund (“IWM”) from the position and exercise limits provided for under the Rule 904 Pilot Program and to increase the standard position and exercise limits for IWM as part of a six-month pilot (“IWM Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.amex.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to Rule 904 on a six-month pilot basis to exempt options on IWM from the Rule 904 Pilot Program. Under the Rule 904 Pilot Program, the position and exercise limits for IWM would be reduced on January 22, 2007 from 500,000 to 250,000 contracts. The Exchange now proposes to allow position and exercise limits for options on IWM to remain at 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis, from January 22, 2007 through July 22, 2007. In June 2005, as a result of a 2-for-1 stock split, the position limit for IWM options was temporarily increased from 250,000 contracts (covering 25,000,000 shares) to 500,000 contracts (covering 50,000,000 shares). At the time of the split, the furthest IWM option expiration date was January 2007. Therefore, the temporary increase of the IWM position limit will revert to the pre-split level (as provided for in connection with the Rule 904 Pilot Program) of 250,000 contracts after expiration in January 2007, or on January 22, 2007. 5 5 *See* Amex Information Circular #05-0397. The Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is too low and may be a deterrent to the successful trading of IWM options. Importantly, options on IWM are 1/10 th the size of options on the Russell 2000® Index (“RUT”), which have a position limit of 50,000 contracts. 6 Traders who trade IWM options to hedge positions in RUT options are likely to find a position limit of 250,000 contracts in IWM options too restrictive and insufficient to properly hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000 RUT options and wanted to hedge that position with IWM options, the trader would need—at a minimum—500,000 IWM options to properly hedge the position. Therefore, the Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is too low and may adversely affect market participants' ability to provide liquidity in this product. 6 *See* Amex Rule 904C; *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45236 (January 2, 2002), 67 FR 1378 (January 10, 2002) (SR-Amex-2001-42) (increase of position and exercise limits to 300,000 for QQQ options); and 51043 (January 14, 2005), 70 FR 3402 (January 24, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-06) (increase of position and exercise limits for options on Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts® from 75,000 to 300,000). Additionally, IWM options have grown to become one of the largest options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example, the volume in options on IWM set a new single-day record on June 8, 2006, when 760,803 contracts (120,229 calls and 640,574 puts) traded on that day. This record level volume beat the previous single-day high of 727,521 contracts on May 17, 2006. Further, over the previous six months, ending December 31, 2006, the average daily trading volume (market-wide) of IWM options has been 300,409 contracts and a total of 2,444,470 contracts have traded on the Exchange. As a result, the Exchange proposes that options on IWM be subject to position and exercise limits of 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis to run from January 22, 2007 through July 22, 2007. 7 The Exchange believes that increasing position and exercise limits for IWM options will lead to a more liquid and more competitive market environment for IWM options that will benefit customers interested in this product. 7 Pursuant to Rule 905, the exercise limit established for IWM options shall be equivalent to the position limit prescribed for IWM options in Commentary .07 to Rule 904. The increased exercise limits would only be in effect during the pilot period, to run from January 22, 2007 through July 22, 2007. *See* Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Exchange would require that each member or member organization that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 10,000 contracts in the IWM option class, for its own account or for the account of a customer report certain information. 8 This data would include, but would not be limited to, the option position, whether such position is hedged and if so, a description of the hedge, and if applicable, the collateral used to carry the position. Exchange Registered Options Traders and specialists would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement as market-maker information can be accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that maintain a position in excess of 200 contracts will remain at this level for IWM options. 9 8 *See* Amex Rule 906(b). 9 *See* Amex Rule 906(a). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others 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 Because the forgoing rule change does not:

(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 13 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would permit position and exercise limits for options on IWM to remain at 500,000 option contracts for a six-month pilot period. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 15 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has decided to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. 14 *Id.* 15 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2007-11 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1519 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55171; File No. SR-BSE-2007-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Establishment of a Pilot Program That Increases Position and Exercise Limits for Options on the iShares® Russell 2000® Index Fund January 25, 2007. 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 January 23, 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 BSE. BSE has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) to exempt options on the iShares® Russell 2000® Index Fund (“IWM”) from the position and exercise limits provided for under the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program and to increase the standard position and exercise limits for IWM as part of an approximately six-month pilot (“Chapter III, Section 7 IWM Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at BSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.bostonstock.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, 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. BSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 of the BOX Rules on a pilot basis for approximately six months to exempt options on IWM from the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program. Under the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program, the position and exercise limits for IWM were reduced on January 22, 2007 from 500,000 to 250,000 contracts. The Exchange now proposes to allow position and exercise limits for options on IWM to return to and continue at 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis, from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007. In June 2005, as a result of a 2-for-1 stock split, the position limit for IWM options was temporarily increased from 250,000 contracts (covering 25,000,000 shares) to 500,000 contracts (covering 50,000,000 shares). At the time of the split, the furthest IWM option expiration date was January 2007. Therefore, the temporary increase of the IWM position limit reverted to the pre-split level (as provided for in connection with the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program) of 250,000 contracts after expiration in January 2007, or on January 22, 2007. The Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is too low and may be a deterrent to the successful trading of IWM options. Importantly, options on IWM are 1/10 th the size of options on the Russell 2000® Index (“RUT”), which have a position limit of 50,000 contracts. 5 Traders who trade IWM options to hedge positions in RUT options are likely to find a position limit of 250,000 contracts in IWM options too restrictive and insufficient to properly hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000 RUT options and wanted to hedge that position with IWM options, the trader would need—at a minimum—500,000 IWM options to properly hedge the position. Therefore, the Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is too low and may adversely affect market participants' ability to provide liquidity in this product. 5 *See* Chapter XIV, Section 5 of BOX Rules. Additionally, IWM options have grown to become one of the largest options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example, the volume in options on IWM set a new single-day record on June 8, 2006, when 760,803 contracts (120,229 calls and 640,574 puts) traded on that day. This record level volume beat the previous single-day high of 727,521 contracts on May 17, 2006. Further, over the past six months, the average daily BOX trading volume of IWM options has been 9,346 contracts and a total of 1,177,640 IWM contracts have traded between July 22, 2006 and January 22, 2007. As a result, the Exchange proposes that options on IWM be subject to position and exercise limits of 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis to run from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007. 6 The Exchange believes that increasing position and exercise limits for IWM options will lead to a more liquid and more competitive market environment for IWM options that will benefit customers interested in this product. 6 Pursuant to Chapter III, Section 7 of BOX Rules, the exercise limit established under Chapter III, Section 7 for IWM options shall be equivalent to the position limit prescribed for IWM options in Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter III, Section 7. The increased exercise limits would only be in effect during the pilot period, to run from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007. The Exchange would require that each member or member organization that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 10,000 contracts in the IWM option class, for its own account or for the account of a customer report certain information. 7 This data would include, but would not be limited to, the option position, whether such position is hedged and if so, a description of the hedge, and if applicable, the collateral used to carry the position. Exchange market-makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement as market-maker information can be accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that maintain a position in excess of 200 contracts will remain at this level for IWM options. 8 7 *See* Chapter III, Section 10(b) of BOX Rules. 8 *See* Chapter III, Section 10(a) of BOX Rules. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition BSE 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 Because the forgoing rule change does not:

(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 12 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would permit position and exercise limits for options on IWM to continue at 500,000 option contracts for an approximately six-month pilot period. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has decided to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. 13 *Id.* 14 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-BSE-2007-03 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of BSE. 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-BSE-2007-03 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1510 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55174; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Duration of the SizeQuote Mechanism Pilot January 25, 2007. 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 17, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated ( “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 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)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 CBOE gave the Commission written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change on January 10, 2007. *See* Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot in CBOE Rule 6.74(f) pertaining to the SizeQuote Mechanism, which is a process by which a Floor Broker may execute and facilitate large-sized orders in open outcry. The Exchange is proposing to extend the pilot program, which would otherwise expire on February 15, 2007, through February 15, 2008. No other changes are being made to the pilot program through this rule filing. 6 The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.cboe.org/Legal,* at the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 6 A separate rule change proposal has been filed and is currently pending with the Commission that would make amendments to the SizeQuote Mechanism. *See* SR-CBOE-2005-115 (proposal to modify the pilot program in various respects, including to permit a Floor Broker to execute the entire SizeQuote Order at a price at least one trading increment better than the best price communicated by the in-crowd market participants (“ICMPs”) in their responses to the SizeQuote request). 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 those 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose CBOE Rule 6.74(f), which relates to the open outcry “SizeQuote” Mechanism, was approved on a pilot basis in February 2005 and was expanded to include solicited orders in January 2006. 7 The pilot program has been extended once and is currently set to expire on February 15, 2007. 8 The pilot program provides a process by which a Floor Broker, using his/her exercise of due diligence to execute orders at the best price(s), may execute and facilitate large-sized orders in open outcry. Under the pilot program, the ICMPs have priority to trade a SizeQuote Order at the best price communicated by the ICMPs in their response to a Floor Broker's SizeQuote request and at one increment better, while a Floor Broker can execute the entire SizeQuote Order with a facilitation order, one or more solicited orders, or a combination of solicited and facilitation orders at a price two trading increments better than the best price provided by the ICMPs in their response to the SizeQuote request. For purposes of the pilot program, the minimum qualifying order size is 250 contracts 9 and Floor Brokers must stand ready to facilitate the entire size of the order for which they request SizeQuotes. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51205 (February 15, 2005), 70 FR 8647 (February 22, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-72 on a pilot basis through February 15, 2006) and 53135 (January 17, 2006), 71 FR 3908 (January 24, 2006) (approving SR-CBOE-2005-83, which modified the pilot program to enable a Floor Broker to execute a SizeQuote Order with either a firm facilitation order, one or more solicited orders, or a combination of the Floor Broker's facilitation order and such solicited order(s)). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53252 (February 8, 2006), 71 FR 8012 (February 15, 2006) (immediately effective proposal, SR-CBOE-2006-05, extending the pilot program from February 15, 2006 to February 15, 2007). 9 The appropriate Exchange committee determines the classes in which SizeQuote operates and may vary the minimum qualifying order size, provided that such number may not be less than 250 contracts. The instant rule change seeks to extend the existing pilot program, which would otherwise expire on February 15, 2007, through February 15, 2008. The Exchange notes that, as part of the original pilot program approval order and subsequent filing to extend the pilot program, 10 the Exchange represented that it would provide the Commission a report at the end of the pilot period summarizing the effectiveness of the SizeQuote program. In that regard, though the SizeQuote Mechanism has been made available during the pilot period in all equity option classes traded on the Exchange for orders of 250 contracts or more, the Exchange's continued experience has been that Floor Brokers have not generally availed themselves of the SizeQuote Mechanism to facilitate large-sized orders. 11 However, the Exchange continues to believe that the SizeQuote Mechanism enhances ICMPs' ability and incentive to quote competitively and participate in open outcry trades while at the same time creates a process that gives greater certainty to Floor Brokers in the execution of large orders in that ICMPs only have one opportunity to respond with a quote response (which further enhances an ICMP's incentive to quote competitively). The Exchange is therefore seeking to extend the existing pilot program for another year through February 15, 2008 in order to continue its evaluation of the utility of the SizeQuote Mechanism. 10 *See* notes 7 and 8, *supra.* 11 The Exchange believes the SizeQuote Mechanism has not been actively utilized due to some of the limitations and risks inherent in the original design of the pilot program. Thus, CBOE expanded the pilot program to include solicited orders. Originally the pilot program only applied to facilitation orders. *See* note 7, *supra.* CBOE has also proposed to modify the pilot program in various other respects. *See* note 6, *supra.* 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 12 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 13 in particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 15 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-07 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1509 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55173; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-85] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing Standards for Basket Linked Notes January 25, 2007. 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 12, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 Phlx. 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. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803—Criteria for Listing—Tier 1, regarding listing standards for Basket Linked Notes (“BLNs”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web site at *http://www.phlx.com* , at Phlx'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 Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform Phlx's listing standards for Basket Linked Notes, specifically Phlx Rule 803(k), to that of other exchanges. Phlx Rule 803 provides listing standards for Basket Linked Notes, which are income instruments whose values are linked to the performance of highly capitalized, actively traded common stock. Specifically, BLNs are non-convertible debt of an issuer, whose value is based, at least in part, on the value of another issuer's common stock or non-convertible preferred stock. Phlx Rule 803(k) details Phlx's listing standards for BLNs. Specifically, Phlx Rule 803(k)(3) currently requires, among other things, that securities linked to BLNs either:

(i)Have a minimum market capitalization of $3 billion and during the 12 months preceding listing are shown to have traded at least 2.5 million shares;

(ii)have a minimum market capitalization of $1.5 billion and during the 12 months preceding listing are shown to have traded at least 10 million shares; or

(iii)have a minimum market capitalization of $500 million and during the 12 months preceding listing are shown to have traded at least 15 million shares. On December 7, 2000, the Commission granted authority to the Phlx to list and trade notes linked to more than one equity security. 3 Each of the underlying securities of a BLN is required to meet the standards for linked securities set forth in Phlx Rule 803(k). However, the 2000 Order limited the basket of underlying securities that may to be linked to a BLN to no more than twenty. At this time, Phlx proposes to increase the number of underlying securities that may be linked to a BLN from no more than 20 to no more than thirty. 4 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43690 (December 7, 2000), 65 FR 78523 (December 15, 2000) (SR-Phlx-2000-90) (“2000 Order”). 4 This is identical to the listing standard of the American Stock Exchange (Amex Company Guide Section 107B); *see* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47055 (December 19, 2002), 67 FR 79669 (December 30, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-110). The Phlx believes that expanding the basket of equity securities that may be linked to a BLN will enhance competition and benefit investors and the marketplace through additional product choices and alternatives. The Phlx also believes that there would be no investor protection concerns with expanding the number of equity securities that may be linked to a BLN from more than one common stock to up to thirty common stocks. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 6 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The Commission is considering granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day comment period. 7 7 Phlx has requested accelerated approval of this proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of the filing thereof. 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-Phlx-2006-85 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-85. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-85 and should be submitted on or before February 15, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1506 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55153; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-74] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to a Pilot Program To Quote Options in Penny Increments January 23, 2007. I. Introduction On November 13, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend various Exchange rules to permit certain option classes to be quoted in pennies on a pilot basis. On November 22, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on December 5, 2006. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54886 (December 6, 2006), 71 FR 74979. II. Description of the Proposal A. Scope of the Penny Pilot Program Phlx proposes to amend its rules to permit certain option classes to be quoted in pennies during a six-month pilot (“Penny Pilot Program”), which would commence on January 26, 2007. Specifically, proposed Phlx Rule 1034(a)(i)(B) would set forth the parameters of the Penny Pilot Program. Currently, all six options exchanges, including Phlx, quote options in nickel and dime increments. The minimum price variation for quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract is $0.05 and the minimum price variation for quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater is $0.10. Under the Penny Pilot Program, beginning on January 26, 2007, market participants would be able to begin quoting in penny increments in certain series of option classes. The Penny Pilot Program would include the following thirteen options classes: Ishares Russell 2000 (IWM); NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking Stock (QQQQ); SemiConductor Holders Trust (SMH); General Electric Company (GE); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD); Microsoft Corporation (MSFT); Intel Corporation (INTC); Caterpillar, Inc. (CAT); Whole Foods Market, Inc. (WFMI); Texas Instruments, Inc. (TXN); Flextronics International Ltd. (FLEX); Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUNW); and Agilent Technologies, Inc. (A). The Exchange would communicate the list of options to be included in the Penny Pilot Program to its membership via Exchange circular. The minimum price variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except for the QQQQs, would be $0.01 for all quotations in option series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in option series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. The QQQQs would be quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. Proposed Phlx Rule 1034(a)(i)(C) would require the Exchange to prepare and submit a report to the Commission during the fourth month of the pilot, which would be composed of data from the first three months of trading. The report would analyze the impact of penny quoting on market quality and options systems capacity. B. Automatic Executions During Crossed Markets The Exchange anticipates that the instance of crossed markets (where the bid price is greater than the offer price) will increase in options traded in penny increments. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules concerning automatic executions during crossed markets, and its rule 4 providing exceptions from Trade-Through liability when a Trade-Through occurs due to an automatic execution when the Exchange's disseminated market is crossed, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange, and the Exchange's disseminated price on the opposite side of the market for the incoming order establishes, or is equal to, the NBBO. 4 *See* Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10). Currently, orders on the Exchange that are otherwise eligible for automatic execution are handled manually by the specialist when the Exchange's disseminated market is crossed by more than one minimum quoting increment (as defined in Phlx Rule 1034) ( *i.e.* , 2.10 bid, 2 offer), or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange by more than one minimum quoting increment. 5 The Exchange currently provides automatic executions during crossed markets when the Exchange's disseminated market is crossed by not more than one minimum quoting increment, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange by not more than one minimum quoting increment, and the Exchange's disseminated price on the opposite side of the market for the incoming order establishes, or is equal to, the NBBO. 6 The Exchange proposes to delete Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iv)(A), which would mean that the Exchange would provide automatic executions in options where the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO 7 and is crossed, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange, regardless of the amount by which such market is crossed. 8 5 *See* Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iv)(A). 6 *See* Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53449 (March 8, 2006), 71 FR 13441 (March 15, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-45). 7 The Exchange provides automatic executions only when its disseminated market is the NBBO. *See* Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iv)(E). 8 The Exchange notes that another options exchange currently provides automatic executions during crossed markets regardless of the amount by which the market is crossed. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54229 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 44058 (August 3, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2005-90). C. Trade-Throughs Currently, Phlx Rule 1085(b) affords Exchange members several exemptions from Trade-Through liability and the requirements under Phlx's rules and the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (“Linkage Plan”) concerning satisfaction of Trade-Throughs. Among the exemptions from such liability and satisfaction responsibility is current Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10), which provides an exemption when the Trade-Through was the result of an automatic execution when the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO and is crossed by not more than one minimum quoting increment (as defined in Phlx Rule 1034), or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange by not more than one minimum quoting increment. 9 9 The Commission exempted the Exchange from the requirement under Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS that Phlx comply, and enforce compliance by its members, with Section 8(c) of Linkage Plan. Section 8(c) of the Linkage Plan provides, in part, that, “absent reasonable justification and during normal market conditions, members in [Participants'] markets should not effect Trade-Throughs” in the limited situation when transactions are the result of an automatic execution when the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO and is crossed by not more than one minimum trading increment (as defined in Phlx Rule 1034), or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange by not more than one minimum trading increment. *See* letter from Robert L.D. Colby to Meyer S. Frucher, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Phlx, dated March 8, 2006. To be consistent with the proposed rule change (described above) to provide automatic executions when the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO regardless of the amount by which the market is crossed, the Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10) to exempt from such liability and satisfaction responsibility when the Trade-Through was the result of an automatic execution when the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO and is crossed, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange. The proposed rule change would delete the current language contained in Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10) that limits the exemption from Trade-Through and satisfaction liability to automatic executions at the NBBO during markets that are crossed by one minimum trading increment. D. Zero-Bid Option Series Currently, Phlx Rule 1080(i) states that the Exchange's AUTOM System will convert market orders to sell a particular option series to limit orders to sell with a limit price of $0.05 that are received when the bid price for such series is zero. The proposal would amend Phlx Rule 1080(i) to state that the system will convert such orders to limit orders to sell with a limit price of the minimum quoting increment applicable to such series. The effect of this with respect to options quoted and traded in minimum increments of $0.01 would be that such conversion would be to a limit order to sell at $0.01, rather than $0.05. E. Quote Mitigation To mitigate quote traffic, the Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1082, Firm Quotations, by adopting new Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(C), which would modify the Exchange's definition of “disseminated size” such that the Exchange will disseminate fewer updated quotations. Specifically, proposed Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(C) would set forth the conditions under which the Exchange would disseminate updated quotations based on changes in the Exchange's disseminated price and/or size. The proposed rule would require the Exchange to disseminate an updated bid and offer price, together with the size associated with such bid and offer, when:

(1)The Exchange's disseminated bid or offer price increases or decreases;

(2)the size associated with the Exchange's disseminated bid or offer decreases; or

(3)the size associated with the Exchange's bid (offer) increases by an amount greater than or equal to a percentage (never to exceed 20%) of the size associated with the previously disseminated bid (offer). Such percentage, which would never exceed 20%, would be determined on an issue-by-issue basis by the Exchange and announced to membership via Exchange circular. The percentage size increase necessary to give rise to a refreshed quote may vary from issue to issue, depending, without limitation, on the liquidity, average volume, and average number of quotations submitted in the issue. Proposed Phlx Rule 1082(b)(ii)(C) would not be limited to options included in the pilot, and would apply to all options traded on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that participants on its system would not be notified of any incremental increase in the size of the Exchange's quote under proposed Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(C)(3) until such quote is disseminated to OPRA. Therefore, no participant on the Exchange's system would have information that is unavailable to another participant. III. Discussion After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, 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 finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 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. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the implementation of a limited six-month Penny Pilot Program by Phlx and the five other options exchanges will provide valuable information to the exchanges, the Commission and others about the impact of penny quoting in the options market. In particular, the Penny Pilot Program will allow analysis of the impact of penny quoting on:

(1)Spreads;

(2)transaction costs;

(3)payment for order flow; and

(4)quote message traffic. The Commission believes that the thirteen options classes to be included in the penny pilot program represent a diverse group of options classes with varied trading characteristics. This diversity should facilitate analyses by the Commission, the options exchanges and others. The Commission also believes that the Penny Pilot Program is sufficiently limited that it is unlikely to increase quote message traffic beyond the capacity of market participants' systems and disrupt the timely receipt of quote information. Nevertheless, because the Commission expects that the Penny Pilot Program will increase quote message traffic, the Commission is simultaneously approving the Exchange's proposals to reduce the number of quotations it disseminates. 12 12 In addition to the quote mitigation proposal discussed herein, Phlx also proposed other quote mitigation strategies. *See* *e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54648 (October 24, 2006), 71 FR 63375 (October 30, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-52); No. 54807 (November 21, 2006), 71 FR 69173 (November 29, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-53); 54859 (December 1, 2006), 71 FR 71605 (December 11, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-51); 54914 (December 11, 2006), 71 FR 75798 (December 18, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-81). In addition, the Commission believes that Phlx's proposed deletion of Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iv)(A) and proposed conforming changes to Phlx Rule 1085(b)(10) is consistent with the Act and will facilitate the prompt resolution of crossed markets by permitting automatic executions when the Exchange's disseminated market is the NBBO and is crossed, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange, regardless of the amount by which the market is crossed. 13 13 The exemption Phlx received from the requirement under Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS that Phlx comply, and enforce compliance by its members, with Section 8(c) of Linkage Plan regarding trade-throughs on March 8, 2006 ( *see* note 9, *supra* ) was limited to transactions when the market was crossed by one minimum trading increment. Therefore, Phlx submitted an exemption request to expand the scope of the exemption to include trade-throughs resulting from automatic executions while the Exchange's disseminated market is crossed, or crosses the disseminated market of another options exchange, and the Exchange's disseminated price on the opposite side of the market for the incoming order establishes, or is equal to, the NBBO, regardless of the amount by which the market is crossed. *See* letter from Richard S. Rudolph, Vice President and Counsel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Phlx, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated January 19, 2006. The Commission granted this exemption request on January 23, 2007. *See* letter from Elizabeth K. King, Associate Director, Commission, to Richard S. Rudolph, Vice President and Counsel, Phlx, dated January 23, 2006. Finally, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for Phlx to update its rule governing Zero-Bid Options Series to provide that the system will convert such orders to limit orders to sell with a limit price of the minimum quoting increment applicable to such series, in order that options quoted and traded in minimum increments of $0.01 pursuant to the Penny Pilot Program would convert to a limit order to sell at $0.01, rather than $0.05. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-74), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved on a six month pilot basis, which will commence on January 26, 2007. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1508 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5670] Overseas Security Advisory Council

(OSAC)Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on February 22, 2007 at the Boeing Company, Arlington, Virginia. Pursuant to Section 10

(d)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of proprietary commercial and financial information that is considered privileged and confidential. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas. For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. Dated: January 17, 2007. Joe D. Morton, Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-1527 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization; Solicitation of Applications for Regional Small Business Transportation Resource Centers (SBTRCs) Fiscal Year

(FY)2007, Grant Opportunity AGENCY: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: OSDBU announces that it has published an opportunity to apply for the FY 2007 Small Business Transportation Business Resource Center funding on the grants.gov Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Section 4134 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: OSDBU is responsible for the implementation and execution of the Department of Transportation

(DOT)activities on behalf of small businesses in accordance with Section 8, 15 and 31 of the Small Business Act (SBA), as amended. The OSDBU also administers the provisions of Title 49, the Minority Resource Center

(MRC)which includes the duties of advocacy, outreach and financial services on behalf of small and disadvantaged business and those certified under CFR 49 parts 23 and or 26 as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). This request solicits competitive proposals from business centered community-based organizations, transportation-related trade associations, colleges and universities, community colleges or chambers of commerce for participation in OSDBU's Small Business Transportation Resource Centers (SBTRC) under the Minority Resource Center

(MRC)program. OSDBU will enter into Cooperative Agreements with these organizations to outreach to the small business community in their designated region and provide financial and technical assistance, business training programs such as, business assessment, management training, counseling, technical assistance, marketing and outreach, and the dissemination of information, to encourage and assist small businesses to become better prepared to compete for, obtain, and manage DOT funded transportation-related contracts and subcontracts at the federal, state and local levels. Eligible applicants must be registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501 C(6) or 501 C(3) tax-exempt organizations. To apply for funding, applicants must be registered with grants.gov. Registration with grants.gov may take two to five days before the system will allow you to apply for grants using the grants.gov Web site *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.* Submit application in accordance with the instructions provided. Applications for grant funding must be submitted electronically to OSDBU through the grants.gov Web site. DATES: Proposals must be submitted to Grants.gov by March 9, 2007, 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Proposals received after the deadline will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Art Jackson, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 9414, Washington, DC 20590, Tel. 202-366-1930 or 800-532-1169. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued on: January 25, 2007. Denise Rodriguez-Lopez, Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). [FR Doc. E7-1526 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2006-44] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2006-26428 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. You may also submit comments through the Internet to *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the petition, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Shaver, (202-267-9681), Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591-3356, or Tyneka Thomas, (202-267-7626), Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591-3356. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91. Issued in Washington, DC on January 22, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2006-26428. *Petitioner:* GROB Aerospace GmbH. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR 23.3(d). *Description of Relief sought:* Petitioner seeks an exemption from the requirements of § 23.3(d), Airplane categories, to permit the type certification of the GROB G180A in the commuter category. The G180A is a twin-engine turbojet airplane. Under § 23.3(d), the commuter category is currently limited to propeller-driven multiengine aircraft. [FR Doc. 07-409 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

13 references not yet in our index

5 CFR 1320.10
29 CFR 90.18(c)
26 USC 2813
29 USC 206-207
29 CFR 516
29 CFR 4204
Pub. L. 104-13
5 CFR 6.6
44 USC 3501-3520
17 CFR 240.15
17 CFR 270.12
17 CFR 240.19
14 CFR 23.3(d)

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Self-Evaluation)

Cite5 CFR 1320.10

Cite29 CFR 90.18(c)

Cite26 USC 2813

Cites 36 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources