Rules and Regulations. Notice of meeting

21,708 words·~99 min read·/register/2007/03/06/07-997

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

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55367; File No. 4-529] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the International Securities Exchange, LLC and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. February 27, 2007. Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) 1 and 11A(a)(3)(B) 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), granting approval and declaring effective an amended and restated plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities (“Plan”) that was filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act 3 by the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(“NASD”) (together with ISE, the “Parties”). 4 1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 2 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B). 3 17 CFR 240.17d-2. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55057 (January 8, 2007), 72 FR 2040 (January 17, 2007) (“Notice”). Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities allocated to it under the Plan. At the same time, ISE is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to NASD under the Plan.

I. Introduction Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, 5 among other things, requires every self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) registered as either a national securities exchange or registered securities association to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 6 or 19(g)(2) 7 of the Act.

Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 8 was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (“common members”). 9 With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). 8 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 9 *See* Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S.

Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 10 and Rule 17d-2 11 under the Act. Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with respect to their common members. Under paragraph

(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that are allocated by the plan to another SRO. 10 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules. 11 17 CFR 240.17d-2. On January 17, 2007, the Commission published notice of the Plan filed by ISE and NASD. 12 The Commission received no comments on the Plan. The Plan is intended to replace and supersede the current 17d-2 plan between NASD and ISE and all prior amendments thereto in their entirety, 13 and is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of ISE and NASD. The text of the Plan allocates regulatory responsibilities among the Parties with respect to common members. Included in the Plan is an attachment (the “ISE Certification of Common Rules,” referred to herein as the “Certification”) that lists every ISE rule and federal securities law and rule and regulation thereunder for which, under the Plan, NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. 12 *See* Notice, *supra* note 4. 13 The Parties currently operate pursuant to a 17d-2 plan in which NASD has assumed certain inspection, examination, and enforcement responsibility for common members with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations (the “current NASD-ISE 17d-2 plan”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 42668 (April 11, 2000), 65 FR 21048 (April 19, 2000) (File No. 4-431) (notice of filing); 42815 (May 23, 2000), 65 FR 34762 (May 31, 2000) (File No. 4-431) (approval order). II. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act 14 and Rule 17d-2(c) thereunder 15 in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and fosters the development of the national market system. In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed Plan could reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to NASD certain responsibilities for common members that would otherwise be performed by both ISE and NASD. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because ISE and NASD will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection. 14 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 15 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c). The Commission notes that, under the Plan, ISE and NASD have allocated regulatory responsibility for all ISE rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules in that ISE's rule would not require NASD to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a dual member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule (“Common Rules”). These Common Rules are specifically listed in the Certification. In addition, under the Plan, the NASD would assume regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. 16 16 As proposed currently, however, there are no federal securities rules listed on the Certification. Therefore, at present, ISE has not been relieved of any regulatory responsibilities, pursuant to the Plan, for any provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory responsibility, and ISE will retain full responsibility, for:

(1)Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving ISE's own marketplace;

(2)registration pursuant to ISE's applicable rules of associated persons ( *i.e.* , registration rules that are not Common Rules);

(3)ISE's duties as a DEA under Rule 17d-1 of the Act; 17 and

(4)any rules of ISE that do not qualify as Common Rules, except that NASD shall be responsible for such rules with respect to any ISE member that operates as a facility, acts as an outbound router for ISE, and is a member of NASD (“Router Member”). 18 Apparent violations of any ISE rules by any Router Member will be processed by NASD, and NASD will conduct any enforcement proceedings. The effect of these provisions is that regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities for any Router Member will be vested with NASD. These provisions should help avoid any potential conflicts of interest that could arise if ISE was primarily responsible for regulating its affiliated outbound router. 19 17 17 CFR 240.17d-1. 18 Currently, ISE Route LLC is the only Router Member. 19 In a separate proposed rule change relating to the adoption of rules to govern its electronic trading system for equities, ISE represented that it would enter into a 17d-2 agreement with NASD to delegate to NASD all regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the ISE's outbound routing facility pursuant to applicable laws ( *i.e.* , the Plan). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54528 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 58650, 58654 (October 4, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-48). According to the Plan, ISE will perform a review of the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of ISE or NASD, to add ISE rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules ( *i.e.* , new rules that qualify as Common Rules or existing rules that have been amended so that they now qualify as Common Rules); delete ISE rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to NASD rules ( *i.e.* , amended rules that cease to be Common Rules); and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be ISE rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules. NASD will then confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, ISE will also provide NASD with a current list of dual members and shall update the list no less frequently than once each quarter. The Commission is hereby declaring effective and approving a plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD for the oversight and enforcement of all ISE rules that are substantially similar to the rules of NASD for common members of ISE and NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to ISE rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should ISE or NASD decide to add an ISE rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to an NASD rule; delete an ISE rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to an NASD rule; or leave on the Certification an ISE rule that is no longer substantially similar to an NASD rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public comment. 20 20 The Commission also notes that the addition to (or eventual deletion from) the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and regulations for which NASD would bear responsibility under the Plan for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members, would constitute an amendment to the Plan. The Plan also permits ISE and NASD to terminate the Plan, subject to notice, for various reasons. The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the Commission. 21 21 The Commission notes that paragraphs 4 and 13 of the Plan reflect the fact that NASD's responsibilities under the Plan will continue in effect until the Commission approves the termination of the Plan. III. Conclusion This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-529. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Sections 17(d) and 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the Plan in File No. 4-529, between ISE and NASD, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective. *It is therefore ordered* that ISE is relieved of those responsibilities allocated to the NASD under the Plan in File No. 4-529. 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-3837 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55361; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-28] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto Relating to NYSE Rules 134 and 411 February 27, 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 May 2, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE. NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on September 22, 2006. 3 NYSE filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on February 20, 2007. 4 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 Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 supersedes Amendment No. 1 in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NYSE Rules 134 (Differences and Omissions-Cleared Transactions) and 411 (Erroneous Reports). The proposed amendments seek to incorporate recognized trading errors into NYSE Rule 134. The Exchange further seeks to expand the use of the Floor broker's error account to include certain situations involving “not held” orders. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would amend NYSE Rule 411 to allow erroneous reports of an execution involving an incorrect security, incorrect side of the market, incorrect price or whether an execution actually took place, to be treated as an erroneous trade. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new language is *italicized;* proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 5 5 The Exchange inadvertently failed to identify the numbering of Rule 134(g)(i) and

(ii)as proposed new text. For clarity, this numbering has been italicized herein. The Exchange has committed to file an amendment reflecting the fact that this section numbering is new text prior to Commission approval of the proposed rule change. Telephone conversation between Deanna Logan, Director, Office of the General Counsel, NYSE and David Michehl, Special Counsel, Commission, Division of Market Regulation, on February 21, 2007. Rule 134. Differences and Omissions-Cleared Transactions (“QTs”)

(iii)Records as to all errors shall *be contemporaneous to the error and* be maintained by the member or his or her member organization. Such records shall include the audit trail data elements prescribed in Rule 132, as well as the nature and amount of the error, the means whereby the member resolved the error with the member or member organization that cleared the error trade on the member's behalf, the aggregate amount of liability that the member has incurred and has outstanding, as of the time each such error trade entry is recorded, and such other information as the Exchange may from time to time require. *(g) For the purposes of this rule an “error” occurs as described in this subsection

(g)and

(h)below. When an order is executed outside of the customer instructions as entered in the electronic order tracking system of the Exchange pursuant to Rule 123(e). This includes, but is not limited to:* *(i) When a held or a not held order is executed in:* *(a) The wrong security; or* *(b) on the wrong side of the market; or* *(c) at a price outside the limit price of the order; or* *(d) is over bought or over sold; or* *(e) duplicates an execution.* *(ii) When an error is committed in the execution of a not held order as it relates to symbol, side, or price as noted in

(i)above, which causes such not held order to remain unexecuted.* *(h) When:

(i)There is a failure to execute a held order when market conditions permitted; or

(ii)when a not held order remains unexecuted, in whole or in part, due to the order being lost or misplaced, or as a result of a system malfunction.* *(i) The Floor broker must maintain a signed, time-stamped record, including supporting documentation of such error.* *(j)(i) For the types of errors referred to in (h)(ii) above, such record and supporting documents must be provided to the Exchange Division of Market Surveillance prior to the opening of the Floor on the next trade date following the error.* *(ii) With respect to the errors described in (h)(ii) above, the Floor broker may execute the order in alignment with half the volume of each Exchange tape print up to the size of the order between the time that the order was entered and the time that the Floor Broker realized that the order was lost, misplaced or not executed as a result of a system malfunction. If executing half the volume of an order based on the Exchange tape print would result in more than a unit of trading, but not a multiple thereof (such as 150 shares), the customer would be entitled to the nearest full unit of shares rounded down (such as 100 shares).* *(iii) If the Floor broker fails to provide sufficient documentation, (which must include, but is not limited to, the date and time of the error, the date and time the error was discovered, the size of the error, the stock in which the error occurred, the original instructions, the names of all involved parties including the client and any upstairs trader, a detailed narrative of how the error occurred, detail narrative of discussions with relevant parties, the steps taken to correct the error and the ultimate resolution of the error) prior to the next trade date following the error, the Floor broker is prohibited from relying on the provisions of (j)(ii) above.* Rule 411. Erroneous Reports

(iii)*Except as provided in

(iv)below,* [A] *a* report shall not be binding and must be rescinded if an order was not actually executed but was in error reported to have been executed; an order which was executed, but in error reported as not executed, shall be binding; provided, however, when a member who is on the Floor reports in good faith the execution of an order entrusted to him by another member or member organization and the other party to that transaction does not know it, the member or member organization to whom such report was rendered and the member Floor broker who made the report shall treat the transaction as made for the account of the member who made the report, or the account of his member organization, if the price and size of the transaction were within the price and volume of transactions in the security at the time that the member who made the report believed he had executed the order. A detailed memorandum of each such transaction shall be prepared and filed with the Exchange by the member assuming the transaction. *(iv) A Floor broker who fails to execute a not held order because of the Floor broker's error as to symbol, side or price, but reports to the customer the order had been executed in accordance with the customer's instructions, may treat the terms of the execution report as though they were the terms of a trade, provided:* *(1) The price and size of the erroneous report are within the range of prices and sizes in the subject security reported on the Exchange portion of the Consolidated Tape on the day in which the order was erroneously reported;* *(2) the Floor broker reports the error to the customer, and whether the error was favorable or unfavorable to the customer;* *(3) the Floor broker documents, on a trade-by-trade basis, the name of individual authorized to accept the erroneous report for the customer, the amount of the error, and whether the error was in the customer's favor;* *(4) the Floor broker treats the erroneous report as though it were an erroneous trade and his or her error account or the error account of the member organization becomes the opposite side to the report; and* *(5) the Floor broker assumes any loss occasioned by the erroneous report, and pays any profit to the New York Stock Exchange Foundation.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose This filing seeks to codify current recognized trading errors and to expand the use of the Floor broker's error account to include certain situations involving not held 6 orders. NYSE Rules 134 and 411, related to trading errors and erroneous reports, currently require members who “assume or acquire” a position as a result of an error when handling transactions for a customer to report such position in their designated error account. Pursuant to Information Memoranda 01-38, 02-07, 02-19, and 06-34, the Exchange currently interprets an error to be a mistake in the execution of the order. 6 A “not held” order is a market or limit order that gives the broker both time and price discretion to attempt to get the best possible execution. *Current Policy and Procedure for Recognized Trading Errors.* At present, recognized trading errors fall into two categories. The first category applies to held 7 and not held orders and includes trades that are mistakenly executed outside the written order instructions. These types of errors encompass situations where the transaction was incorrectly executed:

(i)In the wrong security;

(ii)on the wrong side of the market;

(iii)outside of the price instructions;

(iv)for a quantity greater than specified in the instructions; or

(v)duplicating a prior execution of the same original order. The second category of trading errors applies only to held orders and involves situations where a held order was executable in the prevailing market; however, the member failed to take advantage of the opportunity to execute the order at that time. 7 A “held” order is a market or limit order that the broker must execute as instructed without discretion as to the time of an execution. Under the current rules 8 and interpretations 9 , a Floor broker's failure to execute a not held order when such not held order was executable in the prevailing market is not an error and the Floor broker cannot use his or her error account to issue reports at prices that the customer would have been entitled to, had the Floor broker executed the not held order in the prevailing market. 8 *See* NYSE Rules 134 and 411. 9 *See* NYSE Regulation, Information Memoranda 01-38, 02-07, 02-19, and 06-34. Similar to the second category of recognized trading errors noted above, that apply only to held orders, there can be instances where a not held order is accepted from a customer but is lost or misplaced or remains unexecuted as a result of a system malfunction and thus the Floor broker fails to execute the not held order when the order would have been executable in the prevailing market. If at the time the Floor broker identifies the execution failure, the customer's order can be executed in the market at an equal or better price than the customer could have received had the order been executed in the prevailing market, then the Floor broker will execute the order. In the event the market is adverse to the customer's interest at the time the error is identified, under the current rules and interpretation, 10 the remedy is to have the Floor broker issue a difference check 11 or offer a commission reduction to address any disadvantage to the customer. 10 *See* NYSE Regulation, Information Memorandum 02-19, issued April 17, 2002, clarifying the application of NYSE Rules 134, 411, and 407A. 11 A “difference check” is a check issued to the customer by the member to cover the monetary difference between the execution price and the price the customer and the member agree was the proper price. In practice, the issuance of a difference check or commission adjustment to resolve any monetary disadvantage suffered by the customer as a result of the Floor broker's failure to execute a not held order due to administrative mistake or system malfunction has proved cumbersome. Many institutional investors do not want the administrative burden of processing a difference check or commission adjustment. More importantly, the issuance of the difference check or commission adjustment is ultimately not in the best interest of the customer because the administrative cost associated with the processing of the difference check or commission adjustment is ultimately borne by the customer and thus the remedy does not serve to make the customer whole. *Proposed Amendments to Rule 134 (Differences and Omissions-Cleared Transactions).* According to the Exchange, this proposed rule change seeks to create greater efficiency and increase uniformity in the handling of trading errors. This proposed rule change seeks to codify in NYSE Rule 134 the types of currently recognized trading errors. The filing further seeks to expand the currently recognized trading errors to include certain types of trading errors involving not held orders. The proposed amendment seeks to define a trading error to include situations when an order is executed outside of a customer's instructions as entered in the electronic order tracking systems 12 of the Exchange. Under the proposed amendment, types of recognized trading errors include, but are not limited to, the execution of a held or not held order:

(i)In the incorrect security;

(ii)on the wrong side of the market;

(iii)at a price outside the price instructions;

(iv)for a quantity of shares greater than the amount of shares specified in the order instructions; or

(v)the execution of an order in duplicate. 13 12 *See* NYSE Rule 123(e). 13 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i). In addition, under the proposed amendment the definition of an error includes when a Floor broker:

(i)Neglects to execute a not held order when market conditions permit; 14

(ii)fails to execute a not held order because he or she committed an error as to symbol, side or price in the execution of said order; 15 or

(iii)fails to execute a not held order because the order was lost, misplaced or remains unexecuted as a result of a system malfunction. 16 14 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(h)(i). 15 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(ii). 16 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(h)(ii) . Pursuant to the above proposed definition of trading errors, a Floor broker would be allowed to use his or her error account to execute a customer's not held order in alignment with the Consolidated Tape, when the Floor broker incorrectly executed a customer's not held order:

(i)In the incorrect security;

(ii)on the wrong side of the market; or

(iii)at a price outside the price instructions when the prevailing market is adverse to the customer's interest at the time that the error is discovered. 17 17 *See* NYSE Rule 134(d) and proposed NYSE Rule 134(g). a. *Not Held Orders—Incorrect Security.* 18 For example, in instances where the Floor broker purchases or sells the incorrect security, and the market in the correct security is adverse to the customer's interest when the error is discovered, the proposed rule change would allow the broker to review reports of executions on the Consolidated Tape in the correct security and determine if, from the time the Floor broker executed the order in the incorrect security until the time the error was discovered, the customer's order was executable in the correct security. In the event the customer's order was executable during that period of time, the customer is given an execution in the correct stock at the price the stock traded at the time of the broker's error or during the time the error remained unrecognized. The broker's error account is the contra-side of this trade and is then long or short the number of shares ordered by the customer at the price the stock was trading in the relevant time range. For example: 18 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i)(a). Order: Buy 10,000 *X* YZ at the market, not held. *Execution:* Bought 10,000 *K* YZ at $98.05 at 11:20 a.m. *Error Discovered:* 11:45 a.m. prior to rendering a report of execution. *Result:* Error account long 10,000 *K* YZ at $98.05. If between 11:20 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. the customer's order in XYZ was executable in its entirety, then the customer buys 10,000 XYZ in its entirety and error account is short 10,000 XYZ at the 11:20 a.m. price. b. *Not Held Order—Wrong Side of Market* 19 . In instances where the broker incorrectly executes a customer's order on the wrong side of the market, and the market in the correct security is adverse to the customer's interest when the error is discovered, the proposed rule change seeks to allow the Floor broker to use his or her error account to take over the incorrect position and execute the customer's order on the correct side of the market. For example: 19 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i)(b). *Order: Buy* 10,000 XYZ at the market, not held. *Execution: Sold* 10,000 XYZ at $45.10. *Result:* Floor broker takes over error; and Sells customer 10,000 XYZ at $45.10. The error account is ultimately short 20,000 shares XYZ at $45.10 which is the sum of the mistakenly sold 10,000 shares of XYZ taken over by the error account and 10,000 shares sold to the customer at a price of $45.10 from the error account. c. Not Held Orders—Outside of Price Instructions 20 20 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i)(c). In instances where the Floor broker executes the customer's order at the incorrect price, the proposed rule change seeks to allow the Floor broker to take the position into the Floor broker's error account. The Floor broker would then be allowed to execute the customer's order consistent with the executions, sizes and prices as printed on the Consolidated Tape, if between the time that the Floor broker committed the error and when the error was discovered, the stock traded within the customer's order price. For example: *Order:* Buy 10,000 XYZ at $80. *50* , Not Held. *Execution:* Bought 10,000 XYZ at $80. *80* at 3:00 p.m. *Error Discovered:* After close buy order limited to $80.50 is unexecuted. *Result:* Error Account Long 10,000 at $80. *80* . If XYZ traded within the customer's limit anytime from 3 p.m. to the close, the error account sells 10,000 consistent with the executions, sizes and prices as printed on the Consolidated Tape and customer order is executed. d. Not Held Orders—Over Buy or Over Sell 21 21 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i)(d). In instances where the Floor broker executes a quantity greater than contained in the order instructions, the proposed rule change seeks to allow the Floor broker to take the position into the Floor broker's error account. When executing a held or not held order a Floor broker may incorrectly calculate the quantity of shares remaining to fill the order and execute a quantity of shares greater than the instructed amount. For example: *Order:* Buy 50,000 XYZ at $80.50, Not Held. *Execution:* Bought 5,000 XYZ at $80.50 at 3 p.m. Bought 5,000 XYZ at $80.49 at 3:10 p.m. Bought 15,000 XYZ at $80.48 at 3:30 p.m. Bought 15,000 XYZ at $80.47 at 3:31 p.m. Bought 5,000 XYZ at $80.48 at 3:36 p.m. Bought 5,000 XYZ at $80.48 at 3:37 p.m. (Order filled) Bought 5,000 XYZ at $80.50 at 3:48 p.m. (Overbuy) *Result:* Error Account Long 5,000 at $80.50 The last execution of 5,000 shares of XYZ at $80.50 which exceed the quantity specified by the customer is taken into the Floor broker error account. e. *Not Held Orders—Duplicate Execution* . 22 In instances where the Floor broker duplicates an execution, the proposed rule change seeks to allow the Floor broker to take the position into the Floor broker's error account. During the execution of an order a Floor broker may inadvertently fail to document the execution of an order or may receive a duplicate transmission of an order and thus execute the order in duplicate. The proposal would allow the Floor broker to take the duplicate execution into the Floor broker's error account. For example: 22 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(g)(i)(e). *Order:* Buy 10,000 XYZ at $80.50, Not Held. *Execution:* Bought 10,000 XYZ at $80.50 at 3 p.m. *Duplicate:* Bought 10,000 XYZ at $80.50 at 3:40 p.m. *Result:* Error Account Long 10,000 at $80.50. The duplicate purchase is taken into the Floor broker's error account. f. *Not Held Order—Lost or Misplaced* . 23 Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the Floor broker would be allowed to use his or her error account to report executions in alignment with the New York portion of the Consolidated Tape when the Floor broker fails to execute a not held order because of an administrative error that resulted in the order being lost or misplaced or remaining unexecuted as a result of a system malfunction and the market at the time the error is discovered is adverse to the customer's interest ( *i.e.* , trading at a price worse than the customer could have received had the error not occurred). Significantly, this proposed amendment would not allow a Floor broker to issue a report of execution from his or her error account in instances where the customer merely did not like the execution, in order to prevent abuse of the new procedure. 23 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(h)(ii). In instances where the Floor broker fails to execute an order as a result of an administrative error, such as the loss or misplacement of an order or a system malfunction and the current market conditions are adverse to the customer's interests, the proposed rule change seeks to allow the Floor broker to use his or her error account as the contra party to the misplaced order in alignment with the New York portion of the Consolidated Tape. The Floor broker would be required to execute the customer's order in alignment with half the volume of every New York portion of the Consolidated Tape print up to the size of the customer order, from the time that the order was entered up to the time that the Floor broker realized that the order was lost, misplaced or not executed because of a system malfunction. 24 In the event that this results in a partial round lot, 25 the customer would be entitled to the nearest full lot, rounded down. Therefore if executed volume on the New York portion of the Consolidated Tape was 300 shares, half that volume would result in 150 shares and the customer would be entitled to a report of 100 shares. This is similar to how percentage orders are executed pursuant to NYSE Rules 13 and 123A.30. For example: 24 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(j)(ii). 25 Securities are generally traded in units of 100 shares referred to as lots. A full round lot is 100 shares. If a trade involves securities that are not in 100 share increments then it is referred to as a partial round lot, *e.g.* , 150 shares. *Order:* Buy 50,000 XYZ at the market, not held. *Event:* Order is lost or misplaced or system malfunction. *Execution:* Execution in alignment according to the New York portion of the Consolidated Tape unless a better price is available in the market. 20,000 shares traded a minute after order entry time on the NYSE as reported to the Consolidated Tape. Floor broker sells 10,000 shares to customer at the same price of the 20,000 share execution. Next transaction in XYZ on the New York portion of the Consolidated Tape was 30,000 shares executed. Floor broker sells 15,000 shares to customer from error account at same price as 30,000 share execution. Next transaction on New York portion of the Consolidated Tape in XYZ was 50,000 shares traded. Floor broker sells 25,000 shares to customer at the same price as the 50,000 share execution. Customer order is now complete. *Result:* Error account sells to the customer and customer receives appropriate report without having to process adjustments. In order to prevent abuse of the proposed new rules, the filing also seeks to amend NYSE Rule 134(d)(iii) to require a Floor broker to make and keep contemporaneous and detailed records documenting the circumstances surrounding errors. A Floor broker would be required to make and keep a time stamped record 26 of the error containing supporting information the Exchange shall, from time to time, require. 27 In addition, the Member Firm Regulation Division of NYSE Regulation, Inc. would include a review of these records during the course of its routine member firm examinations. 26 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(i). 27 The record must include the date and time of the error, the date and time the error was discovered, the size of the error, the stock in which the error occurred, the original instructions, the names of all involved parties including the client and any upstairs trader, a detailed narrative of how the error occurred, detail narrative of discussions with relevant parties, the steps taken to correct the error and the ultimate resolution of the error. *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(j)(iii). The burden of proof would be on the Floor broker to substantiate that a legitimate error occurred. 28 In instances where the Floor broker asserts that an error occurred as a result of an administrative error, such as the loss or misplacement of the order, or a system malfunction, the proposed amendment requires that a Floor broker submit the aforementioned time stamped record to the Exchange prior to the opening of the Floor on the next trade date following the error. 29 Absent the required documentation, the Floor broker would be prohibited from using his or her error account to address these situations. 30 28 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(j)(iii). 29 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(j)(i). 30 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 134(j)(iii). *Proposed Amendments to NYSE Rule 411 (Erroneous Reports).* The Exchange further proposes to amend NYSE Rule 411 to allow a Floor broker to treat erroneous reports 31 as erroneous trades when the Floor broker committed an error as to security, side, or price in order to alleviate disadvantage to the customer. 31 An “erroneous report” is a report of an execution that is incorrect as to stock, price or whether an execution actually took place. When a Floor broker commits an error as to security, side or price, there are instances where the Floor broker issues a report to the customer as a result of the execution. The report is issued to the customer prior to the Floor broker identifying that an error occurred. Currently, pursuant to NYSE Rule 411, in instances where a Floor broker issued a report to a customer based on a transaction that was made outside of the customer's instructions on a not held order as discussed above, the Floor broker would be required to rescind the report leaving the customer's order unexecuted and disadvantaging the customer. The actual execution price and size are binding, and the trade clears and settles in accordance with the terms of the transaction as executed. The member and the customer resolve any monetary issues between themselves. In instances where a Floor broker executed an order in accordance with its terms but the execution details were reported in error, members and member organizations must always accept a corrected report. In the event the erroneous report was made to a non-member, then the non-member may choose to refuse acceptance of a corrected report. In those instances, the Floor broker is allowed to treat the erroneous report to a non-member as though it were an erroneous trade. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, a Floor broker would treat “erroneous reports” as erroneous trades when the price and size of the order would have been executable in the market at or near the time of the erroneous transaction. NYSE Rule 411 (Erroneous Reports), in part, addresses these situations and establishes procedures for members and member organizations to follow in handling erroneous report situations; however erroneous reports issued to customers based on a transaction that was made outside of the customer's instructions, as discussed above, must be rescinded, leaving the customer's order unexecuted. The proposed rule change would allow the erroneous report based on a transaction that was made in error as to security, side or price to stand, provided the price and size of the erroneous report were within the range of prices and sizes in the specified security reported to the NYSE portion of the Consolidated Tape on the day in which the order was executed. 32 The Floor broker would be required to report the error to the customer, including explaining to the customer whether the error was favorable or unfavorable to the customer. 33 The Floor broker would also be required to document on a trade-by-trade basis, the name of the individual authorized to accept the erroneous report for the customer, the amount of the error and whether the error was favorable to the customer. 34 The Floor broker would then treat the erroneous report as though it was an erroneous trade and his or her error account would become the opposite side to the report. 35 In addition, the Floor broker would assume any loss incurred and any profit that resulted would be paid to the New York Stock Exchange Foundation 36 as currently required by NYSE Rule 411(a)(ii)(5). Thus, any disadvantage would be borne by the Floor broker who was responsible for committing the error, not the customer. 32 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 411(a)(iv)(1). 33 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 411(a)(iv)(2). 34 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 411(a)(iv)(3). 35 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 411(a)(iv)(4). 36 *See* proposed NYSE Rule 411(a)(iv)(5). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 37 because 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. 37 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. 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 self-regulatory organization 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. 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-NYSE-2006-28 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-NYSE-2006-28. 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 Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-28 and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 38 38 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-3795 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration, National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or interested others. The conference call will be held on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the internal Board issues; the March 5th agency meeting with senior program management; the Association of Small Business Development Center

(ASBC)Board March meeting; and congressional visits conducted by board members. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone

(202)205-7045 or fax

(202)481-0681. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3812 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5713] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Faith and Community: A Dialogue *Announcement Type:* New Grant. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-07-20. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Application Deadline:* May 8, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, announces an open competition for multiple grants to support international exchange projects under the rubric “Faith and Community: A Dialogue.” This is a continuation of the Office of Citizen Exchanges' “Religion and Society: A Dialogue” initiative, conducted over the past several fiscal years. Public and private non-profit organizations or consortia of such organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to develop and implement multi-phased exchanges involving the travel of clerics, scholars of religion, educators, and community leaders/activists from countries with significant Muslim populations to the United States and of reciprocal visits by American clerics, scholars of religion, and community leaders/activists. (Note that additional participant categories may be included in projects for Southeast Europe. See below.) *Authority:* Overall grant-making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. I. Overview The Office of Citizen Exchanges consults with and supports American public and private nonprofit organizations in developing and implementing multi-phased, often multi-year, exchanges of professionals, community leaders, scholars and academics, public policy advocates, non-governmental organization activists, and others. These exchanges address issues of crucial importance to the United States and to other countries; they promote focused, substantive, and cooperative interaction among counterparts; and they entail both theoretical and experiential learning for all participants. A primary goal is the development of sustained, international, institutional and individual linkages. In addition to providing a context for professional development and collaborative problem-solving, these projects are intended to introduce foreign participants and their American counterparts to one another's political, social, and economic structures, facilitating improved communication and enhancing mutual understanding. The exchange proposal should include focused interaction with local citizens in all countries and activities to orient participants to one another's society and culture. The initiative “Faith and Community: A Dialogue” will support international exchanges of clerics, scholars of religion, educators, and community leaders/activists—influential and recognized for their ability to communicate, through sermons, in scholarly writing, or through community leadership and educational activities—between the United States and countries with significant Muslim populations. The objectives of the exchange are

(1)to enhance the non-American participants' understanding of the place of religion, particularly of Islam, in the life of American communities;

(2)to develop a common language for American and non-American participants to examine issues of relevance to their respective societies and to develop effective approaches to dealing with them;

(3)to offer an understanding of Islamic practice within a multi-cultural, multi-faith, democratic context; and

(4)to broaden the understanding of American scholars, clerics, and laypersons of Islam and of its place in diverse non-American societies. We solicit projects that focus on a particular theme of relevance to faith and community groups in the proposed participating countries. Possible themes might be civil discourse in a multi-faith context; the role of law in resolving conflicts and preserving freedom of expression within and among minority/faith communities; the role of faith communities in providing community services; educating for respect and co-existence; or the role of law in protecting religious expression in diverse societies. We welcome proposals for projects on other themes of relevance to participating countries for which the proposing institution has, or can mobilize, American participants with intellectual expertise and an interest in international dialogue on the selected theme. Proposals should explicitly identify how the American organization will identify counterpart experts in participating countries and state the specific outcome to be achieved by each phase or component of the proposed project. The project, to be conducted over a period of 18 to 24 months, will involve several exchange visits. Initially, one or two American scholars/project organizers may travel to designated partner countries to deepen their familiarity with the particular issues faced by counterpart institutions and communities in those countries and to identify individuals who might serve as advisers or be selected as participants in the project and to gain their interest in the exchange. Subsequently, approximately 12 non-American scholars and clerics will travel to the United States for a period of three to four weeks. The non-American participants will visit Islamic centers, consult with American Muslim scholars and clerics, visit and become familiar with libraries and archives of Islamic documents, make presentations and participate in discussions at non-Muslim religious institutions and at secular institutions that represent America's guarantee of human dignity and freedom of worship, engage in inter-religious dialogue, and participate in workshops and seminars, both public and at institutions dedicated to scholarship and research. Finally, a group of American scholars and clerics will travel to the home countries of the non-American participants, meet with counterparts, visit institutions, and, ideally, cooperate with participants in the original U.S. visit in presenting a seminar, a series of workshops, etc., in order to expand the network of individuals directly affected by the exchange. This series of visits would then be repeated in the following year. Participants in the second year of exchanges might be the same if the goal is to deepen the dialogue, or, if the goal is to accomplish broader participation, participants should be selected to reflect that objective. During each phase of the exchange, traveling participants should be encouraged to have in-depth interaction with local citizens and to participate in appropriate press, media, and other outreach activities. Geographic Focus This initiative is worldwide in scope, with primary focus on countries with significant Muslim populations. For the FY07 competition, in order to assure balance with already existing exchange programs under this rubric, we shall be particularly interested in exchanges focused on the following geographic areas:

(1)Francophone West Africa (Senegal; Mauritania; Niger; Mali; Guinea; Burkina Faso; Chad),

(2)North Africa (Morocco; Algeria; Tunisia),

(3)Southeastern Europe (Albania; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia; Macedonia; Montenegro; Serbia),

(4)Southeast Asia (Malaysia; the Philippines; Thailand), and

(5)The countries of the Arabian Gulf (Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; Qatar; Bahrain; the United Arab Emirates; Oman; Yemen). Exchange proposals that focus on two or more countries in a region or those that focus on single-country exchanges are equally welcome. For projects in Southeast Europe, participants may be educators and others who influence youth, journalists specializing in social/inter-communal issues, as well as clerics, scholars, and community activists/leaders. Projects for this region may also focus more intensely on inter-faith dialogue and include activities encouraging tolerance, respect among communities, and joint-faith community outreach activities. The Office of Citizen Exchanges encourages applicants to be creative in planning project implementation. Activities for all regions may include both theoretical orientation/philosophical background sessions and experiential, community-based initiatives designed to achieve objectives or produce a specific product (magazine, study guide, educational outreach material, etc.) to be used in local communities. Applicants should, in their proposals, identify any partner organizations and/or individuals overseas or in the U.S. with which/whom they are proposing to collaborate and justify the collaboration on the basis of the proposed partner's experience, accomplishments, etc. Selection of Participants Applications should include a description of a merit-based, focused participant selection process. Applicants should anticipate consulting with the Public Affairs Sections of U.S. Embassies in selecting participants, with the Embassy retaining the right to nominate participants, to advise the grantee regarding participants recommended by other entities, and to determine the appropriateness of granting visas. Public Affairs Section Involvement The Public Affairs Sections

(PAS)of the U.S. Embassies often play an important role in project implementation. The PAS will initially evaluate project proposals, and, once a grant is awarded, the PAS may, in consultation with the grantee organization, coordinate planning with the grantee organization and in-country partners, facilitate in-country activities, nominate participants and vet grantee nominations, observe in-country activities, and debrief participants. The PAS will also evaluate project impact. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is responsible for producing and signing DS-2019 Forms. These forms will be provided the foreign participants by the U.S. Mission as part of the process of obtaining the necessary J-1 visas for entry to the United States on a government-funded project. Grantee organizations must submit data on proposed participants electronically. Though project administration and implementation are the responsibility of the grantee institution, the grantee is expected to inform the PAS in participating countries of its operations and procedures and to coordinate with PAS officers in the development of project activities. The PAS should be consulted regarding country priorities, political and cultural sensitivities, security issues, and logistic and programmatic issues. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant Agreement. *Fiscal Year Funds:* 2007. *Approximate Total Funding:* $1,500,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* three or more, with awards ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, August 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 1, 2009. III. Eligibility Information III.1. *Eligible applicants:* Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. *Cost Sharing or Matching Funds:* There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide the highest possible level of in-cash or in-kind cost sharing and funding in support of its programs, and those that provide cost sharing that represents 20% or more of the total cost of the exchange will receive priority consideration. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs that are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. *Other Eligibility Requirements:* a. Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding, in the course of this competition, grants ranging from $350,000 to $500,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement this exchange program. Therefore, organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to receive an award under this competition. b. Technical Eligibility: Proposals must comply with the requirements included in this Request for Grant Proposals in order to be considered technically eligible for consideration in the review process. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete announcement, either at *http://www.exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps* or in the **Federal Register** before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1. *Obtaining an Application Package:* The Application Package comprises this Request for Grant Proposals and a Proposal Submission Instruction

(PSI)document, consisting of required application forms and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. The Solicitation Package may be downloaded from: *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm.* Please read all information before downloading. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. IV.2. To receive a hard copy of the Application Package via U.S. Postal Service, contact Thomas Johnston, Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF, Room 216, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone

(202)453-8162; Fax

(202)453-8168; e-mail *JohnstonTJ@state.gov.* Please refer to Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-07-20 on all inquiries and correspondence. IV.3. *Content and Form of Submission:* Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and ten copies of the application should be submitted per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” section. IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424 which is part of the formal application package. IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, a proposal narrative, and a budget. Please refer to the Application Package, containing the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)document, for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV.3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV.3d.1. *Adherence To All Regulations Governing The J Visa.* The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the official program sponsor of the exchange program covered by this RFGP, and an employee of the Bureau will be the “Responsible Officer” for the program under the terms of 22 CFR 62, which covers the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program (J visa program). Under the terms of 22 CFR 62, organizations receiving grants under this RFGP will be third parties “cooperating with or assisting the sponsor in the conduct of the sponsor's program.” The actions of grantee program organizations shall be “imputed to the sponsor in evaluating the sponsor's compliance with” 22 CFR 62. Therefore, the Bureau expects that any organization receiving a grant under this competition will render all assistance necessary to enable the Bureau to fully comply with 22 CFR part 62 et seq. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places great emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should *explicitly state in writing* that the applicant is prepared to assist the Bureau in meeting all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR 62. If your organization has experience as a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor, the applicant should discuss their record of compliance with 22 CFR 62 et. seq., including the oversight of their Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. The Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor

(J)programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: United States Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, ECA/EC/ECD—SA-44, Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Telephone:

(202)203-5029. FAX:

(202)453-8640. IV.3d.2. *Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines.* Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disabilities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the 'Support for Diversity' section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3. *Program Monitoring and Evaluation.* Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program *outputs* and *outcomes.* *Outputs* are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. *Outcomes* represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and are usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. *Participant satisfaction* with the program and exchange experience. 2. *Participant learning,* such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. *Participant behavior,* concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. *Institutional changes,* such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it

(1)specifies intended outcomes;

(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;

(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and

(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire project. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. Budgets that limit administrative costs to approximately 25% of the funding sought from ECA will be given priority consideration. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following:

(1)Direct program expenses

(2)Administrative costs

(3)Allowable indirect costs Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. *Application Deadline and Methods of Submission:* Application Deadline Date: May 8, 2007. Reference Number: ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-07-20. Methods of Submission: Applications may be submitted in one of two ways: 1. In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or 2. Electronically through *http://www.grants.gov. * Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1. *Submitting Printed Applications.* Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages *may not* be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and ten

(10)copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-07-20, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section(s) at the U.S. embassy(ies) for its(their) review. IV.3f.2. *Submitting Electronic Applications.* Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the 'Get Started' portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support. Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726. Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time. e-mail: *support@grants.gov.* Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. *Intergovernmental Review of Applications:* Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for grant awards resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. *Quality of the program idea:* Proposals should be substantive, well thought out, focused on issues of demonstrable relevance to all proposed participants, and responsive to the exchange suggestions and guidelines provided above. *Implementation Plan and Ability To Achieve Objectives:* A detailed project implementation plan should establish a clear and logical connection between the interest, the expertise, and the logistic capacity of the applicant and the objectives to be achieved. The plan should discuss in concrete terms how the institution proposes to achieve the objectives. Institutional resources—including personnel—assigned to the project should be adequate and appropriate to achieve project objectives. The substance of workshops and site visits should be included as an attachment, and the responsibilities of U.S. participants and in-country partners should be clearly delineated. *Institutional Capacity:* Proposals should include an institutional record of successful exchange programs, with reference to responsible fiscal management and full compliance with reporting requirements. The Bureau will consider the demonstrated potential of new applicants and will evaluate the performance record of prior recipients of Bureau grants as reported by the Bureau grant staff. *Post-Grant Activities:* Applicants should provide a plan for sustained follow-on activity (building on the linkages developed under the grant and the activities initially funded by the grant) after grant funds have been expended. This will ensure that Bureau-supported projects are sustainable and are not isolated events. Funds for all post-grant activities must be in the form of contributions from the applicant or sources outside the Bureau. Costs for these activities should not appear in the proposal budget but should be outlined in the narrative. *Project Evaluation/Monitoring:* Proposals should include a detailed plan to monitor and evaluate the project. Competitive evaluation plans will describe how the applicant organization will measure results, defined in both qualitative and quantitative terms and will include draft data collection instruments (surveys, questionnaires, etc.) in Tab E. Successful applicants will be expected to submit a report after each project component is concluded or semi-annually, whichever is less frequent. *Cost Effectiveness and Cost Sharing:* Administrative costs should be kept low. Proposal budgets should provide evidence of any cost sharing offered, comprised of cash or in-kind contributions. Cost sharing may be derived from diverse sources, including private sector contributions and/or direct institutional support. *Support of Diversity:* Proposals should demonstrate support for the Bureau's policy on diversity. Features relevant to this policy should be cited in program implementation (selection of participants, program venue, and program evaluation), program content, and program administration. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. *Award Notices:* Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated, and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an Assistance Award Document

(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer, identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments”. OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations. OMB Circular No. A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations. Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants.* *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI.* VI.3. *Reporting Requirements:* You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports: 1. Semi-annual program and financial reports, which include a description of program activities implemented in the course of the six-month period and an accounting of expenditures. 2. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration date of the award. 3. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. Organizations awarded grants will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:

(1)Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the grant.

(2)Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three work days prior to the official opening of the activity. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Thomas Johnston, Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF, Room 216, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone:

(202)453-8162; Fax:

(202)453-8168; e-mail: *JohnstonTJ@state.gov.* Correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the title and number ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-07-20. Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: February 27, 2007. Dina Habib Powell, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-3869 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. DATES: The meeting will be on April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th floor, MacCracken Room. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Robinson, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202)267-9678; fax

(202)267-5075; e-mail *Gerri.Robinson@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee taking place on April 11, 2007, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. The agenda includes: • ISO Feedback • Future taskings of ARAC • Issue Area Status Reports from Assistant Chairs • Remarks from other EXCOM members Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. The FAA will arrange teleconference service for individuals wishing to join in by teleconference if we receive notice by April 4. Arrangements to participate by teleconference can be made by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Callers outside the Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance charges. The public must arrange by April 4 to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive committee by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting. If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Issued in Washington, DC, February 26, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E7-3801 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-26971] Notice of Request for Comments on Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection: Medical Qualification Requirements AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for information. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request

(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This information collection pertains to the requirements set forth in 49 CFR parts 391 and 398 for the following activities:

(1)A medical examination form and certificate to be completed by a licensed medical examiner;

(2)The submission of an application to FMCSA for the Agency to resolve conflicts of medical evaluations between medical examiners;

(3)A driver qualification

(DQ)file for:

(a)Motor carriers to include the medical certificate;

(b)motor carriers of migrant workers to include a doctor's certificate for every driver employed or used by them; and

(c)motor carriers to include a Skill Performance Evaluation

(SPE)certificate issued to a driver with a limb disability; and

(4)Information collected from carriers, drivers and interested parties used in Agency determinations for granting exemptions from the vision and diabetes requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The Agency published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR in October 2006 (71 FR 61822, Oct. 19, 2006). The Agency did not receive any comments in response to this notice. DATES: Please send your comments by April 5, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Qualifications Division,

(202)366-4001, *maggi.gunnels@dot.gov,* FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Medical Qualification Requirements. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0006. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently-approved information collection. *Respondents:* Medical Examiners, Medical Specialists, Physicians, Licensed Doctors of Medicine, Doctors of Osteopathy, Physician Assistants, Advanced Practice Nurses, Doctors of Chiropractic, motor carriers, and CMV drivers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7,000,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* The following records are included in the IC pertaining to the Medical Qualifications Requirements:

(1)*The Medical Examination Form and Certificate* —Twenty minutes for a medical examiner to complete, document, and file the medical examination report; One minute for the medical examiner to complete the medical examiner's certificate and furnish one copy to the person who was examined and one copy to the motor carrier who employs him or her; One minute for carriers to file the medical examiner's certificate in the DQ file;

(2)*Data Resolving Medical Conflicts* —One hour for the Safety Director of a motor carrier company to prepare paperwork for each case and an additional 8 hours to attend any hearings for resolution of medical conflict;

(3)*The SPE Certificate* —Fifteen minutes for a driver to complete an application for an initial SPE certificate; Two minutes to complete an application for a renewal of a SPE certificate; One minute for carriers to copy and file the SPE certificate application in the DQ file;

(4)*Vision Exemptions* —Sixty minutes for a driver to complete an application for a vision exemption with required supporting documents from carriers and interested parties;

(5)*Diabetes Exemptions* —Sixty minutes for a driver to complete a diabetes exemption with required documentation; and

(6)*The Doctor's Certificate for Motor Carriers of Migrant Workers* —One minute for a doctor of medicine or osteopathy to complete a doctor's certificate for drivers of motor carriers of migrant workers; and for carriers to place the certificate in the DQ file for every driver employed or used by them. *Expiration Date:* March 31, 2007. *Frequency of Response:* Biennially, and on occasion, more frequently for drivers who are not eligible to receive a 2-year certificate. There are 7,000,000 drivers subject to the FMCSA medical standards. A medical certificate usually is valid for 2 years after the date of examination. However, drivers with certain medical conditions must be certified more frequently than every two years, so halving the number of drivers underestimates the total number of certifications that are conducted annually. In addition, some employers require newly hired drivers to obtain a new medical certification even if the driver's current certificate is still valid. As a result of these exceptions to the biennial medical certification schedule, the Agency estimates that the actual number of medical certifications conducted annually is 20 percent greater than would be the case if all drivers were examined biennially. Biennial examinations would result in approximately 3,500,000 medical examinations per year, but the Agency estimates that approximately 4,200,000 examinations are conducted annually. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 1,541,534 hours [1,540,000 hours for medical examination form and certificate (4,200,000 certificates × 22 minutes/60 minutes per hour + 11 hours for resolution of medical conflicts (3 cases × 1 hour each to prepare, plus 8 hours for one hearing) + 192 hours for SPE certificates (2,100 certificates × 1 minute/60 minutes for motor carriers + 1,700 renewals × 2 minutes/60 minutes + 400 new × 15 minutes/60 minutes) + 727 hours for vision exemptions (1572 total applicants × .27 or 27 % + 268 new vision exemptions + 35 hours for motor carriers motor carriers to retain a copy in the driver's DQ file) + 600 hours for diabetes exemptions (600 applications × 1 hour) + 3.5 rounded to 4 hours for doctors certificate for drivers of migrant workers (100 certificates × 2 minutes/60 minutes) = 1,541,534 hours]. Background Title 49 U.S.C. 31136 requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe regulations to ensure that the physical qualifications of commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)operators are adequate to enable them to operate CMVs safely. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 31502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe requirements for qualifications of employees of a motor carrier when needed to promote safety of operation. Information about an individual's physical condition must be collected in order for the FMCSA, States and motor carriers to verify that the individual meets the physical qualification standards for CMV drivers set forth in 49 CFR 391.41; and for the FMCSA to determine whether the individual is physically able to operate a CMV safely. This information collection is comprised of the components listed in the summary above. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:

(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: February 26, 2007. Rose A. McMurray, Assistant Administrator, Chief Safety Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3803 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25004] Identification of Vehicles: Oregon Department of Transportation Tax Credentials Petition for Determination AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; Denial of petition for determination. SUMMARY: FMCSA denies a petition from the Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT)for a determination that the State may continue to require interstate motor carriers to display weight-mile tax credentials (WMTCs) in commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs)in Oregon. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) prohibits States from requiring motor carriers to display in, or on, CMVs any form of identification other than forms required by the Secretary of Transportation. However, SAFETEA-LU also provides that a State may continue to require display of credentials that the Secretary determines are appropriate. ODOT requested that FMCSA determine that its WMTCs are appropriate under SAFETEA-LU. FMCSA denies ODOT's request because it could find no evidence to support a determination that the display of the WMTCs is appropriate. Therefore, the State of Oregon may no longer require interstate motor carriers to display WMTCs. DATES: This decision is effective March 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSD, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-366-4009. E-mail: *MCPSD@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4306 of SAFETEA-LU prohibits States from requiring motor carriers to display in or on commercial motor vehicles any form of identification other than forms required by the Secretary of Transportation [49 U.S.C. 14506(a)]. However, § 14506(b)(3) provides, in part, that “a State may continue to require display of credentials that are required * * * under a State law regarding motor vehicle license plates or other displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate.” ODOT requested that FMCSA determine that the State's WMTCs are appropriate in the context of 49 U.S.C. 14506(a). Oregon has been requiring motor carriers to obtain weight-mile tax credentials since 1947. Oregon Revised Statutes

(ORS)825.454 authorizes ODOT to require the use of identification devices, such as cab cards, stamps or carrier identification numbers, to identify, and be carried in or placed upon, each motor vehicle authorized to be operated in Oregon. ODOT may require annual application for identification devices and it may charge a fee not to exceed $8 for each device issued on an annual basis. ORS 825.450 requires ODOT to issue a permanent credential and ORS 825.470 authorizes issuance of temporary credentials. Until 2001, ODOT required out-of-state carriers to display a special Oregon license plate on each truck registered to operate in the State. State legislation passed in 2001 eliminated the need for out-of-state based vehicles to display the Oregon license plate and substituted the simpler requirement to carry a permanent or temporary paper credential. ODOT states the current WMTCs identify a motor carrier's Oregon account, facilitate reporting and payment of the tax, and assist in tracking vehicle-miles traveled over Oregon highways. ODOT also believes truck drivers want to have the credential at hand when fueling in Oregon, because fuel providers use it to verify that a vehicle is exempt from Oregon fuel tax. ODOT advises that approximately 15,000 out-of-state based carriers operate 283,000 trucks that carry a permanent Oregon tax credential. It also advises that approximately 10,000 trucks with a 10-day temporary credential operate within the State at any given time. A copy of ODOT's petition for determination is available for review in the docket for this notice. Public Comments On June 13, 2006, FMCSA published a notice in the **Federal Register** requesting public comment on the ODOT request to be allowed to continue requiring motor carriers to display weight-mile tax credentials. [“Identification of Vehicles: Oregon Department of Transportation Tax Credentials; Petition for Determination;” Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25004, June 13, 2006, 71 FR 34188]. In formulating its position, FMCSA considered all of the comments received in response to the Agency's **Federal Register** notice. Eleven comments were submitted to the docket. The comments were almost evenly divided between supporters and opponents of Oregon's request for exception. Six commenters supported ODOT's request; this includes a comment filed by ODOT. Five commenters opposed the request and urged FMCSA to deny it. The commenters' discussions, both for and against granting the exemption request, centered on the following issues: • Intended versus unintended consequences of denying ODOT's request; • Denying ODOT's request could result in complications for motor carriers; • Denying ODOT's request could result in complications for Oregon; • Benefits associated with the weight-mile tax credential; • Ease of obtaining the credential; and • Consideration of grandfather privileges. Intended Versus Unintended Consequences of Denying ODOT's Request The ODOT suggests, in its July 6, 2006, filing to the docket, that Congress may have unintentionally included Oregon's weight-tax credential when enacting the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14506. However, ODOT admits there is no specific discussion of its weight-tax credential in the Congressional record. ODOT suggests that the only evidence of legislative intent may be found in a March 8, 2006, bipartisan letter, filed in the docket on June 13, 2006, from Oregon's Congressional delegation to the Secretary of Transportation expressing concern about the preemption and support for the State's request. ODOT goes on to suggest that its weight-tax credentialing program may have been confused with the International Fuel Tax Agreement and International Registration Plan. This argument is supported by the Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association, Inc., the American Automobile Association

(AAA)of Oregon/Idaho, and AAA of Washington, DC. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) states that ODOT provides no compelling information in its argument which would suggest Congressional intent. The OOIDA suggests that ODOT's weight-mile tax credential is precisely the type of document Congress had in mind when it was considering section 4306. The OOIDA states, “There is nothing in SAFETEA-LU that singles out Oregon for either attention or a special exemption.” In comments to the docket, the American Trucking Associations cite legislation that it suggests shows Congress's intent to lessen the paperwork requirements on interstate motor carriers by individual States. *FMCSA Response:* No information was presented to support ODOT's assertion that Congress “unintentionally” included Oregon's weight-tax credential when it adopted the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14506(b). To the contrary, ODOT's weight-mile tax credential is likely the type of paper credential intended to be prohibited. Absent clear evidence of Congressional intent, the Agency must follow the plain language of the statute. Denying ODOT's Request Could Result in Complications for Motor Carriers The ODOT suggests in its comments that many interstate motor carriers use the credential to obtain the benefit of not having to pay a fuel-tax when purchasing diesel fuel in the State. The ODOT suggests that not having the credential to present to suppliers at the time of purchase will result in an unnecessary administrative burden when reclaiming the fuel tax. Other commenters did not address this issue. The OOIDA states in its comments that over the past two decades, Congress and the Department of Transportation have simplified multiple-licensing, registration, and reporting requirements that States imposed on interstate commerce. Also, OOIDA states that it and other industry associations have concluded that there is no net benefit to requiring display of the ODOT weight-mile tax credential. The United Parcel Service

(UPS)states that Federal and State regulatory agencies, in conjunction with the motor carrier industry, have worked to reduce vehicle paperwork requirements to only those which are truly safety-related (hazardous materials, emergency, vehicle inspection, etc.). Furthermore, UPS argues that Oregon already verifies electronically the compliance of motor carriers with its financial responsibility requirements and is well positioned to expand that system to weight-distance tax compliance. The Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association, Inc. advises that it and its members do not find that being required to maintain the weight-mile tax credential is burdensome. The AAA organizations also suggest the weight-mile tax credential requirement is not burdensome, primarily because of the ease of obtaining the credential electronically. *FMCSA Response:* No motor carriers commented directly upon ODOT's claim that display of the weight-mile tax credential has benefits for carriers, such as providing them documentation for fuel-tax relief. FMCSA recognizes that the elimination of paperwork is a goal included in most Federal programs, and believes that such paper-based credentials should be authorized only when absolutely necessary. Denying ODOT's Request Could Result in Complications for Oregon The ODOT states that if not granted the exception, enforcing the weight-mile tax will be more challenging and opportunities for tax evasion will increase. It suggests that evasion by motor carriers in purchasing the weight-mile tax credential will result in a loss of funding for the State. Opponents of the exception all suggest that ODOT can develop technological means that would allow for immediate verification by enforcement officials as to whether or not a motor carrier has complied with Oregon's weight-mile tax laws. *FMCSA Response:* ODOT acknowledged that by accessing State data systems, police officers may be able to verify payment of the weight-mile tax without having the paper credential on the vehicle. The fact that enforcement could be “more challenging” does not outweigh the burden that the additional paperwork places on carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Benefits Associated With the Weight-Mile Tax Credential The ODOT and all of the commenters that support the weight-mile tax credential suggest that one of its benefits is to ensure that motor carriers meet their cost responsibility for road use in Oregon. The ODOT also contends that the weight-mile tax credential has a safety-related benefit, resulting in Oregon's Motor Carrier Management Information System non-match rate 1 being one of the lowest in the country. 1 “Non-match rate” refers to the matching of driver-vehicle inspections conducted by State officials with the appropriate motor carrier record in the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System. A valid “match” enables use of the State data in determining safety status of an interstate motor carrier. The OOIDA and UPS both contend that ODOT could and should rely solely on the U.S. DOT number, as required by 49 CFR 390.21, to accurately identify motor carriers operating in its State, and that the weight-mile tax credential does not significantly add any value to this process. The OOIDA argues that Oregon wants to maintain the “easy revenue” derived from fining drivers who misplace the paper credentials. *FMCSA Response:* The value of the Oregon weight-mile tax credential as an enforcement tool was previously addressed. Although the existence of a weight-mile tax credential on the vehicle might assist an officer in determining the correct identification of the motor carrier, there are many other factors having a greater value, such as vehicle markings, shipping documents, and lease agreements. Considering the use of owner-operators and leased vehicles, the weight-mile tax credential would not necessarily be a determinative factor in identifying the responsible motor carrier. Ease of Obtaining the Credential The ODOT and the commenters who support the weight-mile tax credential advise that it can be obtained electronically without elaborate administrative processes. However, ODOT states that only those motor carriers registered to use its Trucking Online Internet-based service can obtain the weight-mile tax credential online. No commenter that opposes the credential contradicted the assertion of the ease of electronic filing. Several, however, including OOIDA, ATA, and UPS, contend that the overall process of applying for and obtaining the paper credential is an administrative burden and serves no purpose other than to generate revenue for the State. Each contends that motor carriers that fail to produce the weight-mile tax credential at time of inspection are issued citations even though the carrier may be registered with the State. *FMCSA Response:* Although it may be relatively easy for a motor carrier to obtain the Oregon weight-mile tax credentials, ensuring that the paper documents are distributed to and carried on each vehicle, and that the driver has ready access to the document, could add considerably to the paperwork burden of the carrier and driver, especially if similar documents were to be required by other States. Consideration of Grandfather Privileges ODOT contends that it should be granted grandfather privileges for requiring the weight-mile tax credential because it has been requiring the road user taxes since 1947. However, it offers no evidence that Congress intended to grant such privileges regarding section 4306, as pointed out by OOIDA in its comments. *FMCSA Response:* Section 4306 does not provide any authority for, or indication of Congressional intent supporting, the grandfathering of existing credentials that would otherwise be prohibited. FMCSA Decision The FMCSA has decided to deny ODOT's request that the Agency determine that the State's WMTCs are appropriate in the context of 49 U.S.C. 14506(a). The Agency considered all comments submitted to the docket, including the ODOT's assertion that preemption of the WMTCs is an “unintended consequence” of Section 4306. The Agency found no evidence to support that position. In fact, one could just as easily conclude that the WMTCs are exactly the type of display Section 4306 was enacted to prohibit. Furthermore, there is no indication in the legislative history of SAFETEA-LU that Congress intended to “grandfather” existing display requirements, other than those specifically listed in 49 U.S.C. 14506(b). In consideration of the above, the State of Oregon may no longer require interstate motor carriers to display weight-mile tax credentials on CMVs. Issued on: February 26, 2007. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3806 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21323] Withdrawal of Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Use of Surge Brakes on Commercial Motor Vehicles AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of regulatory guidance. SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws all prior regulatory guidance, previously in the **Federal Register** , as well as memoranda and letters issued by the Agency, indicating that surge brakes do not meet certain provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). Elsewhere in today's issue of the **Federal Register** , FMCSA amends the FMCSRs to allow the use of automatic hydraulic inertia brake systems (surge brakes) on trailers when the ratios of gross vehicle weight ratings for the towing-vehicle and trailer are within certain limits. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Policy and Program Development, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Washington, DC 20590, phone

(202)366-0676, fax

(202)366-8842, e-mail *luke.loy@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 1993, the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)1 published “Regulatory Guidance for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,” at 58 FR 60734. The publication included interpretations of 49 CFR 393.48, a rule that requires brakes to be operable at all times, and 49 CFR 393.49, the requirement that the braking system on CMVs be designed such that one brake application valve controls all the brakes on the vehicle. The Agency interpreted the regulations to prohibit the use of surge brakes on Commercial Motor Vehicles

(CMVs)operated in interstate commerce. The regulatory guidance was republished on April 4, 1997, at 62 FR 16370. 1 The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 [Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (December 9, 1999)] established the FMCSA in the Department of Transportation. On January 4, 2000, the Office of the Secretary published a final rule delegating to the FMCSA Administrator the motor carrier safety functions required by MCSIA, which included certain motor carrier safety functions previously delegated to the FHWA (65 FR 200). The FMCSA subsequently issued an Enforcement Policy memorandum on September 14, 2004, directing Federal enforcement staff, and requesting State and local enforcement officials, temporarily to allow surge brakes on CMVs operated in interstate commerce, under certain conditions, pending completion of a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding through which a determination would be made whether surge brakes should be allowed on a permanent basis. A copy of that Enforcement Policy memorandum is in the docket cited at the beginning of this notice. A final rule issued by FMCSA, published elsewhere in today's issue of the **Federal Register** , amends the FMCSRs to allow the use of surge brakes. The final rule defines the term “surge brake”, identifies the requirements for a surge brake system, and allows the use of automatic hydraulic inertia brake systems (surge brakes) on trailers when the ratios of gross vehicle weight ratings for the towing-vehicle and trailer are within certain limits. Therefore, in consideration of the final rule on surge brakes, the Agency withdraws all prior interpretations and regulatory guidance, issued previously in the **Federal Register** , as well as FMCSA memoranda and letters, stating that surge brakes do not meet the requirements of 49 CFR 393.48 and 393.49. Issued on: February 26, 2007. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3813 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555] The New Car Assessment Program; Suggested Approaches for Enhancements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Correction of Public Hearing Time. Correction In notice document Volume 72 Number 16 beginning on page 3473 on the issue date of January 25, 2007, make the following correction to the meeting time posted: 1. On page 3473, under Public Hearing, the beginning time is corrected to read as 8:30 a.m. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: February 27, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-3814 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27376] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2004 Volkswagen Passat Sedan and Wagon Model Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because

(1)they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and

(2)they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATE: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (“J.K.”) (Registered Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which J.K. believes are substantially similar are 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS. J.K. submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2004 Volkswagen Passat sedan and wagon model passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect* , 103 *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems* , 104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems* , 106 *Brake Hoses* , 109 *New Pneumatic Tires* , 113 *Hood Latch System* , 116 *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* , 124 *Accelerator Control Systems* , 135 *Passenger Car Brake Systems* , 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact* , 202 *Head Restraints* , 204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement* , 205 *Glazing Materials* , 206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* , 207 *Seating Systems* , 209 *Seat Belt Assemblies* , 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting* , 214 *Side Impact Protection* , 216 *Roof Crush Resistance* , 219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion* , and 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials* . In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581. The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 101 *Controls and Displays:* Installation of a U.S.-model instrument cluster. Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:*

(a)Installation of U.S.-model headlamp assemblies which incorporate front side-mounted marker lamps; and

(b)installation of U.S.-model taillamp assemblies which incorporate rear side-mounted marker lamps. Standard No. 110 *Tire Selection and Rims:* Installation of a tire information placard. Standard No. 111 *Rearview Mirrors:* Installation of a U.S.-model passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the required warning statement on the face of that mirror. Standard No. 114 *Theft Protection:* Installation of U.S.-version software to meet the requirements of this standard. Standard No. 118 *Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems:* Installation of U.S.-version software to meet the requirements of this standard. Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection:*

(a)Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non U.S.-model seat belts, air bag control units, air bags, and sensors with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped; and

(b)installation of U.S.-version software to ensure that the seat belt warning system meets the requirements of this standard. The petitioner states that the crash protection system used in these vehicles consists of dual front airbags and knee bolsters, and combination lap and shoulder belts at the front and rear outboard seating positions. These manual systems are automatic, self-tensioning, and are released by means of a single red push-button. Standard No. 225 *Child Restraint Anchorage Systems:* Inspection of all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. Standard No. 301 *Fuel System Integrity:* Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of non-U.S.-model fuel system components with U.S.-model components on vehicles not already so equipped. Standard No. 401 *Interior Trunk Release:* Inspection of all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: February 27, 2007. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-3817 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 43 Tuesday, March 6, 2007 Rules and Regulations Part II Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Department of the Treasury Department of Commerce International Trade Administration 19 CFR Parts 12, 163, and 361 Entry of Certain Cement Products From Mexico Requiring a Commerce Department Import License and Mexican Cement Import Licensing System; Final Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 12 and 163 [CBP Dec. 07-05 and USCBP-2006-0020] RIN 1505-AB68 Entry of Certain Cement Products From Mexico Requiring a Commerce Department Import License AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) to set forth special requirements for the entry of certain cement products from Mexico requiring a United States Department of Commerce import license. The cement products in question are those listed in the Agreement on Trade in Cement, entered into between the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States Department of Commerce, and Mexico's Secretaria de Economia, on March 6, 2006. The changes implemented by this document require an importer to submit to Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)an import license number on the entry summary (CBP Form 7501) or on the application for foreign trade zone

(FTZ)admission and/or status designation (CBP Form 214), for any cement product for which the United States Department of Commerce requires an import license under its cement licensing and import monitoring program. Additionally, an importer must submit a hard copy of the original valid Mexican export license with the entry documentation or provide such document to the FTZ operator, unless directed otherwise by CBP. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Buchanan, Office of International Trade, Tel:

(202)344-2697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 6, 2006, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the United States Department of Commerce (Commerce), and the Ministry of Economy of the United Mexican States (Secretaria de Economia) signed a bilateral Trade in Cement Agreement (Agreement) concerning trade in cement between the United States and Mexico. The Agreement applies only to cement from Mexico as defined in Section I.L. of the Agreement. A copy of the Agreement is available on the Commerce Web site: *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/download/mexico-cement/cement-final-agreement.pdf* . The Agreement requires the creation of an Export Licensing Program by Mexico and an Import Licensing Program by Commerce to enforce certain quantitative restrictions contained in the Agreement. On May 31, 2006, the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce published a document in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 30836) proposing a rule, set forth at §§ 360.201 through 360.205 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 360.201 through 306.205) (changed to §§ 361.101 through 361.105 in ITA's final rule), that would establish a cement licensing and import monitoring program as directed under the terms of the Agreement. Although Commerce was vested with primary responsibility for the Mexican Cement import licensing and monitoring procedures, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is primarily responsible for the promulgation and administration of regulations regarding the importation and entry of merchandise into the United States. Accordingly, in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, on June 1, 2006, CBP published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 31125) a proposal to add a new § 12.155 to title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 12.155) which requires the inclusion of a cement import license number on the entry summary (CBP Form 7501) or the application for admission to a FTZ (CBP Form 214), and the submission of a valid Mexican export license with the entry summary documentation, in any case in which a cement import license is required to be obtained under the Commerce regulations. It was proposed that the entry (unless otherwise directed by CBP) must be a paper filing, and the license number must be included: on the entry summary (CBP Form 7501), at the time of filing, in the case of merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption in the customs territory of the United States; or, on CBP Form 214, at the time of filing under part 146 of this chapter, in the case of merchandise admitted into a foreign trade zone. Comments were solicited on the proposal. Discussion of Comments Two comments were received in response to the solicitation of public comment in 71 FR 31125. A description of the comments received, together with CBP's analyses, is set forth below. Comment Two commenters inquired as to where on the CBP Form 7501 the import license number should be identified. CBP Response The import license number must be reported in column 33 of the newly reformatted CBP Form 7501 (or column 34 of the previous version of the CBP Form 7501, which remains valid). If the entry summary requires more than one cement import license, each license number must be reported within the column on the line item covering the subject cement. On the CBP Form 214, the import license number must be reported in box 16. If the CBP Form 214 is submitted in an electronic format (CBP Form e-214), the import license number must be reported as per instructions provided to the trade and made available for public viewing at *http://www.cbp.gov/* . Comment One commenter inquired as to how long an importer must maintain copies of the import license, and in what format the records must be maintained ( *i.e.* , hard copy or electronic), in order to comply with CBP regulations. CBP Response Copies of Mexican Cement Import Licenses must be retained pursuant to the provisions set forth in part 163 of title 19 of the CFR. Section 163.4 (19 CFR 163.4) prescribes a record retention period of 5 years from the date of entry. Section 163.5 (19 CFR 163.5) prescribes methods for the storage of records. Specifically, § 163.5(a) states that persons required to maintain records (as per § 163.2) must retain the original, whether paper or electronic, for the prescribed retention period. The term “original,” when used in the context of the maintenance of records, is defined in § 163.1(h) (19 CFR 163.1(h)) as pertaining to records that are “in the condition in which they were made or received.” The import license numbers at issue are to be generated via an automated Mexican Cement Import Licensing System (for a complete description, see 71 FR 30837, dated May 31, 2006), which provides a single opportunity to print the electronically generated import license number. For security reasons, the system does not allow users to retrieve previously issued licenses from the license system. Accordingly, the original hard copy print-out of the Mexican Cement Import License must be retained for the 5 year retention period. Department of Commerce Final Regulations In another document published in today's edition of the **Federal Register** , the Department of Commerce has finalized its proposal of May 31, 2006. Conclusion In conjunction with the final regulations adopted by the Department of Commerce, CBP, after analysis of the comments received in response to CBP's proposed rule and upon further consideration, has determined to adopt as a final rule the amendments proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 31125) on June 1, 2006 with modifications as set forth below. In the final rule, CBP will permit importers to report the import license number on either a paper or electronic version of the application for admission to a FTZ (CBP Form 214/e-214). This change from the proposal is being made to reflect that certain CBP ports are currently accepting electronic versions of the application for FTZ admission and/or status designation (CBP Form e-214) in lieu of paper copies. Paper copies of the CBP Form 214 will still be accepted; however, CBP is urging all members of the trade community to file electronic versions of the CBP Form e-214 where possible. Existing operational ports are listed at the CBP Web site located at *http://www.cbp.gov/* . The site will be updated to reflect new CBP Form e-214 operational ports. Any questions regarding the CBP Form e-214 admission should be directed to the local CBP Port Director. Section 12.55 is restructured in this final rule to present a more logical organization. The recordkeeping provision in paragraph

(c)is retitled as “Import license information” in the final rule. Paragraph (d), entitled, “Export license information,” now includes a reference to recordkeeping requirements relevant to export licenses. The language of § 12.155(d) in the proposed rule is changed in the final rule to clarify that importers of Mexican cement must submit an original, physical copy of a valid Mexican export license to CBP with the entry summary documentation, unless otherwise directed by CBP. This language is added in the event CBP is able to process these types of entries electronically in the future. This provision is also changed in the final rule to clarify that the original physical copy of a valid Mexican export license must be provided to the FTZ operator with the CBP Form 214 in the case of a FTZ admission (unless otherwise directed by CBP) and, in such case, upon withdrawal from the FTZ no paper export license will be required to be submitted to CBP with the merchandise's subsequent entry summary documentation. Similarly, the language in proposed § 12.155(b)(1) is changed in the final rule to clarify that no import license will be required on the CBP Form 7501 for Mexican cement that was previously admitted to a FTZ and for which an import license number was already provided to CBP on the CBP Form 214. The “List of Records Required for the Entry of Merchandise” set forth in the Appendix to part 163 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR part 163) is also amended by this document to reflect the entry document requirements mandated by the Agreement. This document amends section IV of the Appendix by adding a new § 12.155 that lists the Mexican Cement export license and import license as new entry records. The Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), it is certified that the amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendment, which involves the addition of one data element, at the time of entry, to either one of two existing required CBP forms and a submission of a Mexican export license, as required by the Agreement and the Department of Commerce regulations, will have a negligible impact on importer operations. Accordingly, the amendment is not subject to the regulatory analysis or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 This amendment does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866. Signing Authority This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1). List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 12 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Imports, prohibited merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise. 19 CFR Part 163 Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendment to CBP Regulations For the reasons stated above, parts 12 and 163 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) are amended as follows: PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The authority citation for part 12 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624; 2. A new center heading and new § 12.155 are added to read as follows: Mexican Cement Products § 12.155 Entry or admission of Mexican cement products.

(a)*In general.* On March 6, 2006, the United States Trade Representative, United States Department of Commerce and Mexico's Secretaria de Economia entered into an “Agreement on Trade in Cement” (Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, the United States Department of Commerce will administer an import licensing system that covers imports of Mexican cement as defined in section I.L. of the Agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury, through the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for the promulgation and administration of regulations regarding the entry of the subject merchandise into the United States. The Agreement will terminate on March 31, 2009, unless it has been terminated prior to that date.

(b)*Reporting the import license number.* For every entry of merchandise for which a Mexican cement import license is required to be obtained under regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, set forth at 19 CFR 361.101 through 361.205, the entry (unless otherwise directed by CBP) must be a paper filing and the license number must be included:

(1)On the entry summary, at the time of filing, in the case of merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption in the customs territory of the United States, except for Mexican cement that was previously admitted to a FTZ and for which an import license number was already provided to CBP on the CBP Form 214. If the entry summary requires more than one cement import license, each license number must be reported within the column on the line item covering the subject cement; or

(2)On CBP Form 214 or on an electronic version of CBP Form 214 (CBP Form e-214), as required by CBP, at the time of filing under part 146 of this chapter, in the case of an application for foreign trade zone

(FTZ)admission and/or status designation.

(c)*Import license information.* There is no requirement to present physical copies of the import license to CBP at the time of filing either the CBP Form 7501 or CBP Form 214; however, importers must maintain copies in accordance with the applicable recordkeeping provisions set forth in the chapter.

(d)*Export license information.* Under regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, set forth at 19 CFR 361.101(d), importers of Mexican cement must submit an original, physical copy of a valid Mexican export license to CBP with the entry summary documentation (unless otherwise directed by CBP). In the case of an application for FTZ admission and/or status designation, the original physical copy of a valid Mexican export license must be provided to the FTZ operator with the CBP Form 214 (unless otherwise directed by CBP) and, in such case, upon withdrawal from the FTZ no paper export license will be required to be submitted to CBP with the merchandise's subsequent entry summary documentation. For multiple shipments at multiple ports, or multiple entries at one port, the original physical copy of the Mexican export license must be submitted to CBP (unless otherwise directed by CBP) with the first entry summary or to the FTZ operator with the CBP Form 214 or CBP Form e-214, as required by CBP, and a copy of the export license must be presented with each subsequent entry summary or CBP Form 214/e-214. Importers must also retain copies of the export license issued by the Mexican Government pursuant to the recordkeeping requirements set forth in part 163 of this title.

(e)*Duration of requirements.* The provisions set forth in this section are applicable for as long as the Agreement remains in effect. PART 163—RECORDKEEPING 3. The authority citation for part 163 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1624. 4. The Appendix to part 163 is amended by adding a new listing, in numerical order, for § 12.155 under section IV to read as follows: Appendix to Part 163—Interim (a)(1)(A) List IV. * * * § 12.155 Export license and import license for Mexican Cement. Deborah J. Spero, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Approved: February 28, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 07-997 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

U.S. Code