Rules and Regulations. Proposed rules

16,680 words·~76 min read·/register/2007/06/22/07-3099

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 120 Friday, June 22, 2007 Proposed Rules COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 18 RIN 3038-AC22 Maintenance of Books, Records and Reports by Traders AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Proposed rules. SUMMARY: Commission Regulation 18.05 requires that a person holding or controlling a futures or option position in a commodity above a certain level (reportable position) on a designated contract market or registered derivatives transaction execution facility (reporting markets) must retain books and records and make available to the Commission upon request any pertinent information with respect to other positions, transactions or activities in the commodity in which the trader has a reportable position.

The Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 18.05 in two respects: To make it explicit that persons holding or controlling reportable positions on a reporting market must retain books and records and make available to the Commission upon request any pertinent information with respect to all other positions and transactions in the commodity in which the trader has a reportable position, including positions held or controlled or transactions executed over-the-counter and/or pursuant to Sections 2(d), 2(g) or 2(h)(1)-(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act

(Act)or Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, on exempt commercial markets operating pursuant to Sections 2(h)(3)-(5) of the Act, on exempt boards of trade operating pursuant to Section 5d of the Act, and on foreign boards of trade (hereinafter referred to collectively as non-reporting transactions); and to make the regulation clearer and more complete with respect to hedging activity. The purpose of the amendments is to enhance the Commission's ability to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to the integrity of the regulated futures markets, to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk, and to clarify the meaning of the regulation. DATES: Comments must be received by July 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202-418-5521, or by e-mail to *secretary@cftc.gov.* Reference should be made to “Regulation 18.05.” Comments may also be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane C. Andresen, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone 202-418-5492; e-mail *dandresen@cftc.gov.* This document is also available at *www.regulations.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose of Regulation 18.05 and Statutory Basis Section 3(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act

(Act)1 declares that the purpose of the Act is to, among other things, deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity and to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Act and the avoidance of systemic risk. 2 Section 4i of the Act 3 requires persons holding futures or option positions at designated contract markets

(DCM)or registered derivatives transaction execution facilities

(DTEF)at or above certain levels to keep books and records of all:

(1)Transactions and positions in the exchange-traded commodity,

(2)transactions and positions in any such commodity traded on or subject to the rules of any other board of trade, and

(3)cash or spot transactions in, and inventories and purchase and sale commitments of such commodity. Such books and records must be open at all times for inspection by any representative of the Commission or the Department of Justice. 1 7 U.S.C. 5(b) (2006). 2 Section 3(b) of the Act provides in full that it is the purpose of this chapter to serve the public interests described in subsection

(a)of this section through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission. To foster these public interests, it is further the purpose of this chapter to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to this chapter and the avoidance of systemic risk; to protect all market participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets; and to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants. 3 7 U.S.C. 6i (2006). Section 4i of the Act provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to make any contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility if such person shall directly or indirectly make such contracts with respect to any commodity or any future of such commodity during any one day in an amount equal to or in excess of such amount as shall be fixed from time to time by the Commission, and if such person shall directly or indirectly have or obtain a long or short position in any commodity or any future of such commodity equal to or in excess of such amount as shall be fixed from time to time by the Commission, unless such person files or causes to be filed with the properly designated officer of the Commission such reports regarding any transactions or positions described in clauses

(1)and

(2)hereof as the Commission may by rule or regulation require and unless, in accordance with rules and regulations of the Commission, such person shall keep books and records of all such transactions and positions and transactions and positions in any such commodity traded on or subject to the rules of any other board of trade, and of cash or spot transactions in, and inventories and purchase and sale commitments of such commodity. Such books and records shall show complete details concerning all such transactions, positions, inventories, and commitments, including the names and addresses of all persons having any interest therein, and shall be open at all times to inspection by any representative of the Commission or the Department of Justice. For the purposes of this section, the futures and cash or spot transactions and positions of any person shall include such transactions and positions of any persons directly or indirectly controlled by such person. Section 8a(5) of the Act 4 provides explicit authority to the Commission to make and promulgate such rules and regulations as, in the judgment of the Commission, are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. In order to accomplish the purposes of Sections 3(b) and 4i set forth above, the Commission has promulgated regulations creating market and large trader reporting requirements. 5 Included among these regulations is a requirement that persons holding futures or option positions at DCMs or DTEFs (reporting markets) 6 at or above reportable levels (reportable positions) 7 are identified to the Commission under the large trader reporting system (LTRS). The LTRS, which requires that clearing members, futures commission merchants

(FCM)and foreign brokers file daily reports with the Commission, enables the Commission to assess an individual trader's activities and potential market power and to enforce the Commission or DCM-set limits on speculative positions. 8 Once a trader holds a reportable position, the trader is subject to Commission Regulation 18.05, 9 which requires that the trader keep books and records showing all details concerning:

(1)All positions and transactions for future delivery in the commodity on all reporting markets;

(2)all positions and transactions in the commodity option;

(3)all positions and transactions in the cash commodity, its products and byproducts; and

(4)commercial activities that the trader hedges in the commodity underlying the futures contract in which the trader is reportable. 10 A reportable trader is required to furnish to the Commission, upon request, any pertinent information concerning these positions, transactions or activities. 11 Traders who do not hold reportable positions do not have obligations under Regulation 18.05. 4 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (2006). 5 The Commission's market and large trader reporting rules are contained in Parts 15 through 21 of the Commission's regulations. 6 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 15.00(m), a reporting market means a designated contract market and, unless determined otherwise by the Commission with respect to the facility or a specific contract listed by the facility, a registered derivatives transaction execution facility. 7 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 15.00(l), reportable position means: for reports specified in parts 17, 18 and § 19.00(a)(2) and (a)(3) of this chapter any open contract position that at the close of the market on any business day equals or exceeds the quantity specified in § 15.03 of this part in either: any one future of any commodity on any one reporting market, excluding future contracts against which notices of delivery have been stopped by a trader or issued by the clearing organization of a reporting market; or long or short put or call options that exercise into the same future of any commodity, or long or short put or call options for options on physicals that have identical expirations and exercise into the same physical, on any one reporting market. For the purposes of reports specified in § 19.00(a)(1) of this chapter, any combined futures and futures-equivalent option open contract position as defined in part 150 of this chapter in any one month or in all months combined, either net long or net short in any commodity on any one reporting market, excluding futures positions against which notices of delivery have been stopped by a trader or issued by the clearing organization of a reporting market, which at the close of the market on the last business day of the week exceeds the net quantity limit in spot, single or in all-months fixed in § 150.2 of this chapter for the particular commodity and reporting market. 8 The Commission also uses large-trader reporting information as a means to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk in that such information enables Commission staff to determine which FCMs carrying accounts might have exposure in particular markets. 9 Regulation 18.05 states in full that every trader who holds or controls a reportable futures or option position shall keep books and records showing all details concerning all positions and transactions for future delivery in the commodity on all reporting markets, all positions and transactions in the commodity option, and all positions and transactions in the cash commodity, its products and byproducts and, in addition, commercial activities that the trader hedges in the commodity underlying the futures contract in which the trader is reportable, and shall upon request furnish to the Commission any pertinent information concerning such positions, transactions or activities. 10 In describing the requirements of Regulation 18.05 in 1981, the Commission stated that the regulation requires reportable traders to maintain books and records of futures positions and transactions in the commodity in which they are reportable and all positions and transactions in the cash commodity and its products and byproducts.* * * [T]he Commission wishes to underscore its view that the book and recordkeeping requirements and inspection provision contained therein are essential to accomplish the purposes of the Act and within the Commission's authority to adopt pursuant to section[s] 4i and 8a(5) of the Act. These requirements have always applied to the traders who hold or control a reportable position, and have not been restricted in any way. “Reporting Requirements for Contract Markets, Futures Commission Merchants, Members of Exchanges and Large Traders,” 46 FR 59,960, 59,963 (December 8, 1981) (footnote omitted). 11 The Commission currently requests such information an average of three times per year. II. Proposed Amendments A. Introduction In order to enhance its ability to detect and prevent manipulation of regulated markets and products and to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk, as well as to clarify the meaning of the regulation and bring it up to date, the Commission proposes, for the reasons discussed below, to amend Regulation 18.05 in the following respects: 1. To make it explicit that persons holding or controlling reportable positions on a reporting market must retain books and records and make available to the Commission upon request pertinent information with respect to all non-reporting transactions, i.e., all positions and transactions in the commodity in which the trader is reportable, including transactions executed over-the-counter and/or pursuant to Sections 2(d), 2(g) or 2(h)(1)-(2) of the Act or Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, on exempt commercial markets operating pursuant to Sections 2(h)(3)-(5) of the Act (ECM), on exempt boards of trade operating pursuant to Section 5d of the Act (EBOT), and on foreign boards of trade (FBOT); and 2. to make the regulation clearer and more complete with respect to hedging activity. B. Amendments Related to Recordkeeping and Reporting There is a close relationship among transactions conducted on reporting markets and non-reporting transactions. In view of this, it is sometimes necessary to determine all transactions and positions with respect to the commodity in which the trader is reportable in order to more effectively detect and prevent manipulation of regulated markets and products and to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk. 12 Just as it is critical that the LTRS permits staff to aggregate related accounts to assess an individual trader's activities and potential power in a market, so is it critical that staff be able to assess the reportable trader's overall position in the same commodity in non-reporting transactions in order to see the complete picture of the reportable trader's positions in the commodity. This is particularly important in light of the growing volume of trading on, and participation in, the non-reporting markets, the close relationship among the various products and markets, the increasing globalization of the futures markets, and the growth of trading on electronic exchanges and on foreign boards of trade. 13 Regulation 18.05 explicitly requires that a trader that is reportable because of futures or option positions in a futures or option contract traded on a DCM or DTEF keep books and records and provide to the Commission, upon request, pertinent information with respect to positions and transactions in the underlying commodity. For example, a reportable trader in the Natural Gas futures contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., (NYMEX) must keep books and records and provide to the Commission, upon request, pertinent information with respect to positions and transactions in Natural Gas on all DCMs and DTEFs, in the commodity option, in the cash commodity, its products and byproducts, and commercial activities that the trader hedges in the commodity underlying the Natural Gas futures contract. Information with respect to positions and transactions in the virtually identical Natural Gas contracts on the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), an ECM, also is important to the Commission's ability to conduct effective market surveillance of the NYMEX Natural Gas contracts and to determine the degree of a trader's exposure in both the NYMEX and ICE natural gas markets. Similarly, if a trader is reportable because of futures or option positions in the Light Sweet Crude Oil contract on the NYMEX, the trader's books and records with respect to non-reporting positions and transactions in the West Texas Intermediate

(WTI)Light Sweet Crude Oil futures or option contracts on ICE Futures, 14 a foreign board of trade, 15 are relevant to effective surveillance and supervision of the reporting NYMEX market. The Act provides ample authority to require keeping books and records and providing pertinent information with respect to non-reporting transactions. Section 4i explicitly encompasses non-reporting transactions on “any other board of trade” (such as FBOTs, ECMs operating pursuant to Sections 2(h)(3)-(5) of the Act, and EBOTs operating pursuant to Section 5d of the Act) and in the form of cash or spot transactions, inventories, and purchase and sale commitments. Further, Section 3(b) of the Act declares that the purpose of the Act is to, among other things, deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity and to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk. Section 8a(5) of the Act authorizes the Commission to promulgate such regulations as, in its judgment, are reasonably necessary to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. Making it explicit that Regulation 18.05 requires the reportable trader to keep books and records showing all details concerning non-reporting transactions in the reportable commodity is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of Section 3(b) of the Act. 12 Sections 6(c), 6c, 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Act authorize the Commission to bring enforcement actions against any person who is manipulating or attempting to manipulate or has manipulated or attempted to manipulate the market price of any commodity, in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity. 13 For instance, since 1999, Commission staff, through foreign terminal no-action letters, has allowed 18 FBOTs to make their trading systems available by direct access to members and other participants in the U.S. without requiring the FBOTs to register as DCMs or DTEFs. 14 ICE Futures is a UK registered investment exchange which permits direct access to its trading system from the U.S. pursuant to a foreign terminal no-action letter issued by Commission staff. CFTC Staff Letter No. 99-69 (November 12, 1999), as amended, originally issued to the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). 15 Section 1a of the Act defines the term board of trade as any organized exchange or other trading facility without regard to location. Although non-reporting transactions themselves generally are not subject to most regulatory provisions of the Act, the futures or option transactions executed and maintained on a DCM or DTEF that result in a reportable position are subject to such provisions and, pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Act, are affected with a national public interest. It is the purpose of the Act pursuant to Section 3(b) that the Commission prevent price manipulation of all commodities traded on these regulated markets. To accomplish this purpose, it is necessary that the Commission have the ability to review all activities in commodities traded on these markets, regardless of where the transactions are executed. By taking a position on a regulated market, a trader agrees to abide by the rules of the market and the Commission, including prohibitions against manipulation. To enhance its ability to detect and deter manipulation and other threats to market integrity, the Commission requires persons holding reportable positions to maintain books and records of transactions that could impact the regulated market and related cash market, including non-reporting transactions. 16 16 As previously stated, traders who do not hold reportable positions on reporting markets do not have obligations under Regulation 18.05's recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Commission staff has interpreted Regulation 18.05 to include position and transaction data for non-reporting transactions and has received such information in response to requests made pursuant to the Regulation. Consistent with the Act and Commission practice, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 18.05 to make explicit that a trader with a reportable position must keep books and records showing all details concerning all non-reporting transactions in the same commodity and provide pertinent information to the Commission upon request. C. Amendments Related to Clarity and Completeness The Commission notes two issues that arise in connection with the Regulation 18.05 requirement that traders keep books and records showing all details concerning “commercial activities that the trader hedges in the commodity underlying the futures contract in which the trader is reportable.” First, the phrase has led to some confusion. Originally inserted into the paragraph as “commercial activities that the trader hedges in the futures commodity in which the trader is reportable,” its purpose was to require that, “in addition to books and records of positions or transactions in a cash commodity, a reportable trader must also maintain records of commercial activities which the trader hedges.” 17 Second, reportable positions can be option positions, as well as futures positions, but it is not clear that the current language also addresses commercial activities that the trader hedges in the commodity underlying any option contract in which the trader is reportable. 17 46 FR 42463, 42466 (August 21, 1981). The Commission proposes to amend the regulation to revert to the original approach and include hedges in the option contract in which the trader is reportable. By modifying the phrase to read “commercial activities that the trader hedges in the futures or option contract in which the trader is reportable,” Regulation 18.05 would capture information with respect to hedges in other than the cash commodity, its products or byproducts (i.e., a trader with a reportable position in gold futures that is a hedge of a cash position in silver would be required to comply with the Regulation 18.05 requirements with respect to the silver position). III. Related Matters A. *Cost Benefit Analysis* Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation or order under the Act. By its terms, Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed rule or order shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern:

(1)Protection of market participants and the public;

(2)efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets;

(3)price discovery;

(4)sound risk management practices; and

(5)other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule or order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments would make it explicit that persons holding or controlling reportable positions on a reporting market must also retain books and records and make available to the Commission upon request any pertinent information with respect to non-reporting transactions in the commodity in which the trader is reportable, and make the regulation clearer and more complete with respect to hedging activity. These amendments would enable the Commission to better carry out its responsibilities under Section 3(b) of the Act by enhancing the Commission's ability to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to the integrity of the regulated futures markets and help to ensure the avoidance of systemic risk. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments would address the Section 15(a) enumerated areas of market and public concern in that they would further protect market participants and the public, enhance the financial integrity of futures markets, and promote sound risk management practices. The Commission believes that the costs arising from the proposed amendments would be of little or no consequence for three reasons:

(1)The amendments to Regulation 18.05 make explicit existing Commission practice;

(2)it is likely that the traders that would be affected by the proposed amendments' requirements (traders who have reportable positions) already keep books and records showing all details concerning their non-reporting transactions as demonstrated by the fact that Commission staff has received such information in response to requests made pursuant to the Regulation; and

(3)the Commission anticipates that special calls for pertinent information relating to non-reporting transactions would continue to be made on an infrequent basis. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to propose the revisions to Regulation 18.05 as discussed above and set forth below. The Commission specifically invites public comment on its application of the criteria contained in Section 15(a) of the Act. Commenters are also invited to submit any quantifiable data that they may have concerning the costs and benefits of the proposed rule with their comment letters. B. *The Regulatory Flexibility Act* The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , requires federal agencies, in proposing rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission has previously determined that exchanges, futures commission merchants and large traders are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA. 18 The requirements related to the proposed amendments fall on large traders. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the actions proposed to be taken herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 18 47 FR 18618, 18618-21 (April 30, 1982). C. *The Paperwork Reduction Act* When publishing proposed rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)19 imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. In compliance with the PRA, the Commission through these proposed rule amendments solicits comments to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)minimize the burden of the collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Commission has submitted the proposed rule amendments and its associated information collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rule amendments are a part of an approved collection of information. The estimated burden associated with and reporting obligations for traders with reportable positions (OMB Control No. 3038-0009) is as follows: 19 Public Law 104-13 (May 13, 1995). *Average Burden Hour Per Response:* 1.5. *Number of Respondents:* 6. *Frequency of Response:* Upon special call. Persons wishing to comment on the information which would be required by the proposed rule amendments should contact the Desk Officer, CFTC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, 202.395.7340. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, 202.418.5160. Copies of the OMB-approved information collection package associated with the rulemaking may be obtained from the Desk Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, 202.395.7340. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 18 Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Act, and, in particular, sections 3, 4, 4a, 4c, 4g, 4i, 5, 5a and 8a of the Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 18—REPORTS BY TRADERS 1. The authority citation for part 18 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 12a and 19; 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b), unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 18.05 to read as follows: § 18.05 Maintenance of books and records. Every trader who holds or controls a reportable futures or option position shall keep books and records showing all details concerning all positions and transactions in the commodity on all reporting markets, over the counter and/or pursuant to Sections 2(d), 2(g) or 2(h)(1)-(2) of the Act or Part 35 of this chapter, on exempt commercial markets operating pursuant to Sections 2(h)(3)-(5) of the Act, on exempt boards of trade operating pursuant to Section 5d of the Act, and on foreign boards of trade. Every such trader shall also keep books and records showing all details concerning all positions and transactions in the cash commodity, its products and byproducts, and all commercial activities that the trader hedges in the futures or option contract in which the trader is reportable. The trader shall upon request furnish to the Commission any pertinent information concerning such positions, transactions or activities in a form acceptable to the Commission. Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of June, 2007, by the Commission. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. 1 [FR Doc. E7-12045 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 21 Special Calls AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Proposed rules. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is proposing to amend Part 21 of its regulations relating to special calls for information. The proposed amendments would: add to the types of information specified in § 21.02, which must be furnished upon special call, information regarding exchanges of futures for physical commodities or for derivatives positions, and information regarding delivery notices issued and stopped; and delegate to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight and the Director's delegatees, the ability to issue special calls pursuant to sections 21.01 and 21.02. DATES: Comments must be received by July 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to 202-418-5521, or by e-mail to *secretary@cftc.gov.* Reference should be made to “Proposed Rules for Special Calls.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Heitman, Senior Special Counsel (telephone 202-418-5041, e-mail *dheitman@cftc.gov),* Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”), Pub. L. No. 106-554, is intended, among other things, to “deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity.” 1 To that end, the Commission, through its Division of Market Oversight (“Division”), conducts a comprehensive program of market surveillance. A centerpiece of this program is its large-trader reporting system, under which all large futures and option positions are reported to the Commission. Each day, for every active futures or option market, Division surveillance staff monitors the activities of large traders, key price relationships, and all relevant supply and demand factors in a continuous review for potential market problems. An essential element of the Commission's market surveillance program is the ability to make special calls for information from Commission registrants and other market participants. 1 Commodity Exchange Act § 3(b), 7 U.S.C. § 5(b). II. Information To Be Furnished Upon Special Call Part 17 of the Commission's regulations sets forth the routine reports that futures commission merchants, members of contract markets and foreign brokers (collectively, “reporting firms”) are required to submit to the Commission. 2 These reports provide the information for the Commission's large trader reporting system that it uses in its market surveillance program to detect and prevent market manipulation or other disruptions to market integrity in markets subject to Commission oversight. 2 The Commission has recently proposed amendments to its definition of the term, “foreign broker.” The amended definition would also be relocated, from its current location at § 15.00(g) to § 1.3(xx). *See* 72 FR 15637 (April 2, 2007). If such amendments were to be adopted, there would be no change in a foreign broker's obligations to comply with the Commission's large trader or special call regulations set forth in 17 CFR parts 15-21. By contrast, the purpose of the Commission's special call authority in Part 21 of the Commission's regulations is to provide the Commission with relevant information that is not routinely supplied to the Commission, pursuant to other parts of the Commission's regulations such as Part 17. For example, the Commission may need to know about futures positions that are below the routine reporting levels specified in Part 15 of the Commission's regulations. Among possible reasons for such special needs for information may be a particular market situation that warrants unusually close Commission market surveillance, or when Commission staff is conducting an audit of reporting firms to ensure complete and accurate reporting. The proposed amendments to Part 21 would require reporting firms to retain and make available to the Commission, upon a special call, information similar to that which they are required to report to the Commission pursuant to Part 17 of the Commission's regulations. Specifically, the proposed amendments would add two additional categories of information to the types of information specified in § 21.02, which must be furnished upon special call. The first additional category of information that would be subject to special call under this proposal includes information regarding futures contracts exchanged for physical commodities (“EFPs”), as well as futures contracts exchanged for other derivatives contracts, including exchanges of futures for options (“EFOs”) and exchanges of futures for swaps (“EFSs”). The second additional category of information includes the amount of futures contracts where actual delivery of the underlying commodity has been initiated (i.e., delivery notices have been issued or received). Section 21.02 applies to futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), introducing brokers (“IBs”), members of contract markets and foreign brokers. However, the first three of the foregoing categories are already subject to substantial reporting and recordkeeping requirements under § 1.35 of the Commission's regulations, which, among other things, requires FCMs, IBs and contract market members to maintain, and produce on request, the records that are also the subject of these proposed rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, the proposed rules will impose new requirements only on foreign brokers (who are not subject to § 1.35). Foreign brokers and other persons receiving a special call pursuant to § 21.02 are required by that regulation to furnish the information requested. Since such persons cannot comply with the legal requirement to furnish information pursuant to a special call without maintaining records from which to generate the information requested, it follows that persons subject to special calls under § 21.02 are required, by the Commission's regulations, to maintain such records. Therefore, such records—including both those already listed in § 21.02, and those that would be added by this proposed rule amendment—are subject to the five-year record retention requirements of § 1.31(a)(1) of the regulations, which provides in relevant part that: All books and records required to be kept by the Act or by these regulations shall be kept for a period of five years from the date thereof and shall be readily accessible during the first two years of the five-year period. III. Delegation of Authority For reasons of administrative efficiency, the Commission is also proposing to delegate to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, and the Director's delegatees, the power to issue special calls pursuant to sections 21.01 and 21.02. Consistent with other delegations of authority to Commission senior staff, the proposed delegation of the Part 21 special call authority allows the Director to submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated pursuant to the new section. The proposed amendment also preserves the Commission's ultimate authority over the special calls by providing that, “nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated * * * to the Director.” Ordinarily, the delegation of authority to make special calls would not be published for comment because the Administrative Procedure Act provides that “a matter relating to agency management” 3 is not required to be published for comment. However, because the proposed delegation is being published as part of a larger notice that includes other proposed amendments on which the Commission is seeking comment, the Commission will also accept public comments regarding the proposed delegation of authority to issue special calls from the Commission to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight. 3 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). IV. Cost Benefit Analysis Section 15 of the Act, as amended by section 119 of the CFMA, requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation or order under the Act. By its terms, § 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of its action or to determine whether the benefits of the action outweigh its costs. Rather, § 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of the subject rule or order. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed rule or order shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern:

(1)Protection of market participants and the public;

(2)efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets;

(3)price discovery;

(4)sound risk management practices; and

(5)other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule or order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments are intended to supplement the Commission's rules regarding its market surveillance program. That program supports one of the Commission's most critical statutory responsibilities, deterring and preventing price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity. Effective surveillance activities are crucial not only to protecting market participants and the public from price manipulation, but also to: promoting market efficiency, competitiveness and financial integrity; protecting the futures markets' price discovery function; and promoting sound risk management practices. In addition, the records that would be subject to special call under these proposed amendments are the type of basic transaction records that any foreign broker would create as a matter of sound business practices. Because these records would be created in any event, independently of any regulatory requirements, the proposed rules would impose no additional costs on foreign brokers in that area. There would be minimal costs associated with providing the records in answer to a special call, but such costs would be far outweighed by the benefits of protecting the markets and the public. Finally, with respect to the five-year record retention requirement that would apply to these records, the cost of retaining the records would be minimal because Commission rules allow such records to be maintained electronically. Those minimal costs would, again, be far outweighed by the benefits of protecting the marketplace and the public. The Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to Part 21 regarding special calls in light of the above-noted specific areas of concern identified in section 15. The Commission believes that the amended rules would impose the minimum requirements necessary to enable it to perform its oversight functions and to carry out its mandate to protect the public interest in markets that are free of fraud, abuse and manipulation. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to propose the rule amendments set forth below. The Commission specifically invites public comment on its application of the criteria contained in the Act for consideration. Commenters are also invited to submit any quantifiable data that they may have concerning the costs and benefits of the proposed rules with their comment letter. V. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. The proposed amendment to § 21.02 would apply to FCMs, IBs, members of contract markets and foreign brokers. However, as noted above, the first three of these categories are already subject to substantial reporting and recordkeeping requirements under § 1.35 of the Commission's regulations. Among other things, that section requires FCMs, IBs and contract market members to maintain, and produce on request, the records that are also the subject of these proposed rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, the proposed rules will impose new requirements only on foreign brokers (who are not subject to § 1.35). With respect to such foreign brokers, the Commission recently published proposed rules to exempt from registration certain foreign persons (including foreign brokers). 4 In reviewing the applicability of the RFA to such foreign persons, the Commission noted that it has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used in evaluating the impact of its regulations on such entities in accordance with the RFA. 5 The Commission has previously determined that FCMs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA because each FCM has an underlying fiduciary relationship with its customers, regardless of the size of the FCM. 6 The Commission notes that the foreign brokers affected by these proposed changes to the Commission's regulations would be required to be registered as FCMs if not for certain exemptions provided in Commission regulations. As such, they would maintain a fiduciary relationship with customers similar to the relationship maintained by each registered FCM. Therefore, in this context foreign brokers, like FCMs, are not appropriately categorized as small entities. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4 72 FR 15673 (April 2, 2007). 5 47 FR 18618 at 18621 (April 30, 1982). 6 *Id* . at 18619. B. Paperwork Reduction Act When publishing proposed rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)7 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. In compliance with the PRA, the Commission through these proposed rules solicits comments to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(202)395-7340. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581,

(202)418-5160. Copies of the OMB-approved information collection package associated with the rulemaking may be obtained from the Desk Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-7340. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 21 Commodity futures, Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority in the Commodity Exchange Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend Part 21 of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 21—SPECIAL CALLS 1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 12a, 19 and 21; 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b). 2. Section 21.02 is proposed to be amended by: a. Removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (f); b. Redesignating paragraph

(g)as paragraph (i); and c. Adding new paragraphs

(g)and (h). The additions read as follows: § 21.02 Special calls for information on open contracts in accounts carried or introduced by futures commission merchants, members of contract markets, introducing brokers, and foreign brokers.

(g)The total number of futures contracts exchanged for commodities or for derivatives positions;

(h)The total number of futures contracts against which delivery notices have been issued or received; and 3. Section 21.04 is added to read as follows: § 21.04 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight. The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or to the Director's delegates, the authority set forth in section 21.01 of this Part to make special calls for information on controlled accounts from futures commission merchants and from introducing brokers and the authority set forth in section 21.02 of this Part to make special calls for information on open contracts in accounts carried or introduced by futures commission merchants, members of contract markets, introducing brokers, and foreign brokers. The Director may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter that has been delegated pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section to the Director. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2007 by the Commission. Eileen Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-11984 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 62 [Public Notice: 5837] RIN 1400-AC38 Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor Program Services AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to revise its regulations regarding Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor Program services. A new section will contain all of the fees and charges for Exchange Visitor Program services. The long-range goal of these changes is to recoup the full cost for providing such services. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public by August 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods: • Persons with access to the Internet may view this notice and provide comments by going to the *regulations.gov* Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.* • *Mail* (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): U.S. Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547. • *E-mail: jexchanges@state.gov.* You must include the RIN (1400-AC38) in the subject line of your message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547; 202-203-5096 or e-mail at *jexchanges@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State designates U.S. government, academic, and private sector entities to conduct educational and cultural exchange programs pursuant to a broad grant of authority provided by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 2451 *et seq.* ; the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277; as well as other statutory enactments, Reorganization Plans and Executive Orders. Under those authorities, designated program sponsors facilitate the entry of more than 300,000 exchange participants each year. The Fulbright-Hays Act is the organic legislation underpinning the entire Exchange Visitor Program. Section 101 of that Act sets forth the purpose of the Act, viz., “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 by means of educational and cultural exchange * * *”. The Act authorizes the President to provide for such exchanges when he considers that it would strengthen international cooperative relations. The language of the Act and its legislative history make it clear that Congress considered international educational and cultural exchanges to be a significant part of the public diplomacy efforts of the President in connection with his Constitutional prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs. The former United States Information Agency

(USIA)and, as of October 1, 1999, its successor, the U.S. Department of State, have promulgated regulations governing the Exchange Visitor Program. Those regulations appear at 22 CFR part 62, and have remained largely unchanged since 1993, when USIA undertook a major regulatory reform of the Exchange Visitor Program. The first fee regulation was promulgated on September 27, 1999, when USIA published an Interim Final Rule on fees. 64 FR 51894. User fees were adopted for the first time under the authority of Section 810 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 22 U.S.C.1475e, and the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701 . Following the guidelines set forth in Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Circular No. A-25, USIA determined that the following user fees were appropriate in order to recoup the full cost of providing a benefit or service to the users of those benefits or services: Request for § 212(e) waiver review—$136; Request for program extension—$198; Request for change of program category—$198; Request for reinstatement—$198; Program Designation —$799; and Requests for non-routine handling of Form IAP-66 —$43. The Interim Final Rule became Final on April 14, 2000, 65 FR 20083, and it has not been changed since that date. In 2006, the Department examined the current fee structure for compliance with applicable laws and policies, and to determine the appropriate level of fees and whether additional fees are justified. The analysis proceeded from the guiding principles set forth in the legislative framework and authorities cited above, namely, that user fees should be fair, that they should reflect the full cost to perform the services, and that services performed on behalf of distinct, identifiable beneficiaries (versus the public at large) should, to the extent possible, be self-sustaining. As a result of our review, we determined that additional fee categories and increased fees were justified. The services covered by the new categories of fees include those related to new applications for Designation and Redesignation. These fees also include the cost of applications and requests for amendments, allotment requests, and updates of information, as well as the costs for program compliance, regulatory review and development, outreach, and general program administration. There are also new fees for “changes,” i.e., requests for change of program category, extension beyond maximum duration, requests for reinstatement, requests to update the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status, and similar requests. The fees received for this category of services also include the appropriate share of costs for regulatory review and development, outreach, and general program administration. The new fee structure was developed by once again following the guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-25, as well as the Statement of Federal Finance and Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4). In accordance with SFFAS 4, the Department used an “activity-based costing”

(ABC)approach to develop a sustainable cost model to align the costs of the program to the specific services performed on behalf of program sponsors and other program stakeholders. Activity-based costing is a method of identifying the work that is performed, how resources are consumed by that work, and how that work contributes to the production of required outputs. The ABC methodology enabled the development of a bottom-up budget that factored in forecasts for expected demand of program services in the years when the fees are effective and would provide the program with adequate resources to meet that future program demand and eliminate the existing application backlog. Full Cost One of the most critical elements in building the cost models to determine user fees is to identify all of the sources and the appropriate amounts of costs to be included in the analysis. According to the legislative and regulatory guidance as documented in the legal framework, user charges should be based on the full cost to the government of providing the services or things of value. OMB Circular A-25 defines full cost as all direct and indirect costs to any part of the Federal government of providing a good, resource, or service. These costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of: ○ Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement. ○ Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment. ○ Management and supervisory costs. ○ Costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards, and regulation, including any required environmental impact statements. The generally accepted government accounting practices for managerial cost accounting, published in SFFAS 4, provide the standards for cost definition, recognition, accumulation and assignment as they relate to the recognition of full cost. These standards have been applied to the determination of what costs to include in or exclude from the Exchange Visitor Program fee model. According to SFFAS 4, with respect to each responsibility segment, the costs that are to be assigned to outputs include:

(a)Direct and indirect costs incurred within the responsibility segment,

(b)costs of other responsibility segments that are assigned to the segment, and

(c)inter-entity costs recognized by the receiving entity and assigned to the segment. Following the relevant guidance, three general “pools” of costs were identified that should be considered for inclusion in the Exchange Visitor Program fee model: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs/Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation (ECA/EC) costs (direct costs incurred by ECA/EC to administer the Exchange Visitor Program); Bureau-wide costs (indirect costs to provide joint or common services across ECA); and Department-wide costs (indirect costs to provide joint or common services across the Department). Cost Model Structure and Historic Program Cost Costs within the ECA/EC ABC model were separated into three categories: labor, non-labor, and ECA and Department costs. Bureau costs were allocated from the Program Direction & Administration (PD&A) budget of ECA's Program Plan; Department costs were allocated from the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ). ECA/EC Costs ECA/EC direct costs were easily identified through the transactional data of ECA's fee account and the use of general figures for the average grade and step for all current and planned positions. The costs associated with the Coordination Division and the administration of the ECA/EC G-1 exchange program were driven to different activities and outputs than those for the Exchange Visitor Program. As a result, these costs were included in the ECA/EC ABC model but were excluded from the Exchange Visitor Program cost and fee calculations. ECA/EC costs were identified as follows: Labor Costs • OPM General Schedule Salary Rates for Washington, DC area—We used the OPM General Schedule Salary rates tables, provided at *http://www.opm.gov/oca* to populate the labor costs. The mid-range (step 5) for each grade was used to provide a consistent average labor cost across the board. This is an accepted method used as prescribed by OMB Circular A-76, as well as budgeting processes. In addition to salary costs, the OMB standard of 32.85% of total salary was applied to develop the cost for personnel benefits. Non-Labor Costs • ECA/EC Fee Account (X0113.P)—The ECA/EC model uses detailed transaction data pulled from CFMS for the fee account—fund X0113.P. ECA Bureau-Wide Costs Bureau-wide labor costs were identified through specific personnel within the ECA Executive Office (ECA-IIP/EX) who provide service directly to ECA/EC. Bureau-wide non-labor costs were identified through ECA's PD&A. Any costs directly related to other offices within ECA were excluded from the analysis. Costs that were shared across ECA were allocated costs to ECA/EC based on the ratio of ECA/EC to ECA FTE and, in the instance of ECA's Management Information System project, the ratio of funds managed. Department-Wide Costs There was much less insight into the nature of the joint or common services provided by other bureaus throughout the Department to ECA/EC and the Exchange Visitor Program. No detail related to the cost of centrally provided services could be extracted from either the central State Department financial system or ECA's corporate financial system. In addition, neither the Department nor individual bureaus discretely allocate the cost of centrally provided services to constituent bureaus or formally establish shared services arrangements to receive reimbursement for the cost of providing services to other bureaus. As a result, the FY2007 CBJ (please spell out the acronym) was identified as the best available source of Department-wide costs. Since the Department does not discretely allocate intra-entity across bureaus, a materiality was performed to determine the inclusion or exclusion of these costs. Accordingly, these costs were evaluated on a case-by-case basis for inclusion based on materiality factors presented by SFFAS 4: • Significance to the entity—with limited exceptions, there are no significant costs of goods or services that should be factored into the full cost of Exchange Visitor Program outputs; • Directness of relationship to the entity's operations—with limited exceptions, none of the Department-wide joint or common costs can be considered as direct costs, an integral part of, or necessary to, the outputs produced by the Exchange Visitor Program; and, • Identifiability—no formal process exists to match Department-wide joint or common costs to any other entity or responsibility segment. Also, with limited exceptions, there is no means by which to match any Department-wide costs to ECA/EC with reasonable precision. Finally, there was no economical way either to assign directly most of these costs to ECA/EC or to identify or establish any cause and effect relationships between most Department-wide costs and ECA/EC. As a result, most Department-wide costs were excluded from the full cost analysis and costs were only included from this pool when a distinct relationship exists between ECA/EC and other bureaus, whereby ECA/EC directly consumes services from the other bureau and these costs can be reasonably estimated. *The following direct intra-entity support was identified:* • Office of the Legal Adviser—provides legal opinions to the Exchange Visitor Program as required on various subjects including, but not limited to, regulations, policies, designations and sanctions. Pro-rated costs for personnel compensation were included based on the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel. • Bureau of Administration—provides administration and infrastructure management across the Department. Pro-rated costs for GSA rent were included based on the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel. • Office of the Inspector General—provides compliance assistance to the Exchange Visitor Program on a per referral basis. Pro-rated costs for personnel compensation were included based on the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel. FY08 and FY09 Budget Formulation The main goals of budgeting are to facilitate operational planning, resource allocation, performance evaluation, and strategy formulation. In the user fee environment, the budgeting process garners even more importance, as the budget becomes the cost basis for fees. Organizations depend on the budgeting process to establish program requirements and set fees with the expectation that revenues will cover costs during the budget execution period. Too many times, organizations focus on historic costs or expected revenues as the basis for fee setting. By doing so, agencies become fee constrained and artificially limit their ability to meet program requirements and performance standards and service levels. To develop the recommended fees for the Exchange Visitor Program, the Department developed a bottom-up, requirements-based budget targeting FY08 as the implementation year for the new fees. In this approach, the Department defined the actual resource requirement to perform all of the activities necessary to deliver program services within existing performance targets and goals. This approach focused on determining the budget required to meet this performance, and then using this budget as the basis to establish fees. In addition, the Department developed the budget requirement for a two-year period (FY08 and FY09) to coincide with the lifecycle of the fee as prescribed by the Chief Financial Officers' Act of 1994. This section presents the budget requirement formulation process followed to formulate the FY08 and FY09 budget requirements and establish the recommended fees. Program requirements were also projected through FY12 based on current performance and growth projections. By looking forward to future expected output vs. future expected costs, the organization can set realistic fees instead of depending on historical costs. Exchange Visitor Program Budget Formulation EVP followed a fourstep process to develop the FY08 and FY09 budget requirement: • Step 1—Identify Strategy, Goals and Objectives. • Step 2—Develop Workload Requirements. • Step 3—Determine Organizational Capacity. • Step 4—Calculate the Budget Requirement. The budgeting process begins by determining the organization's main objectives and goals and envisioning a desired end-state. After mapping out the strategy and goals, the next step is to develop performance measures to gauge how the organization is progressing to achieving the desired result. The next task is to develop a reliable forecast of the expected volume of work in the upcoming period, as well as to identify new requirements or initiatives that are needed to achieve the goals and meet performance standards. The next step is to determine the capacity and capability of the organization as it currently exists, compare expected workload to existing capacity, and determine any additional workload requirement. The final step is to then perform the calculations to translate goals/objectives into financial and human resource requirements. Workload Requirements The most basic element needed to develop the budget requirement for FY08 is an accurate estimation of expected workload. To develop workload estimates for the Exchange Visitor Program, the activities in the ABC model were divided into two general categories:

(1)Application-based; and

(2)non-application based. The following processes were then used to develop application volume estimates, workload estimates and, subsequently, budget requirements. *Total hours required to perform application-based workload:* • Estimate the expected demand (future volume) for each type of application, or output; • Determine the cycle time to produce each individual output; and • Multiply the expected application volumes by the cycle times to calculate the total work hours required to perform the application-based workload. *Total hours required for non-application based workload:* • Measure the percentage of time spent across the organization on non-application-based workload; • Convert this percentage into hours; and, • Hold these hours as fixed cost (these hours can be held as step-fixed if application based workload is expected to increase materially going forward.) Application Volume To develop the workload estimates, application volumes from SEVIS for FY03-FY06 (to date) were collected. These data and other information regarding expected application demand were used to project workload volume for FY07-FY12. Assumptions • FY07 expected volumes are based on the average of the volumes from prior years. For Amendments, a one-time spike of 80 applications is expected due to the implementation of the Intern program category. For Extensions and Reinstatement-Update SEVIS Status, FY07 volumes were calculated by applying a 2% growth rate to FY06 figures because of insufficient historical data. • FY08-FY12 expected volumes were calculated by applying a 2% annual growth rate. Permission to Issue volumes were held constant to reflect the estimated workload demand, since no SEVIS data exists for this application type. Cycle Time EVP staff were surveyed to collect percentage of time estimates that each staff member spent to complete one application or request for each application type. The Department also performed a sampling exercise to validate the estimates collected in the survey. Over a five-day period, observations of the actual time spent performing the individual tasks for each activity were collected. A mean for each task was established and then summed to calculate the mean cycle time for each application type. Total Workload Requirement With cycle time information and forecasts for application volumes, the total application-based workload requirement was calculated, in hours, for FY07-FY12. Organizational Capacity To determine capacity of the current organization, the Department calculated the ratio of FTE hours dedicated towards application work and non-application work. ECA/EC staff completed activity surveys to provide estimates for percentage of time spent performing each activity, as defined in the ABC model. Survey data was summarized across office and position levels, and the percentage of application and non-application-based workload was determined. The Department used the OMB Circular A-76 standard of 1776 hours for the total number of productive hours for a Federal employee as the basis for establishing hours and FTE levels. The Department compared the total number of hours required to complete the application-based workload to the existing total capacity for application based-workload. This provided the gap between capacity and the true workload requirement. For forecasting purposes, non-application-based costs were held as fixed. The total number of application hours in excess of capacity was divided by 1776 to quantify an FTE requirement in future years. Budget Formulation Once the forecasted workload requirement was established, the future budgets for each general cost “pools” included in the full cost of the Exchange Visitor Program were developed. ECA/EC Direct Cost Estimation ECA/EC Direct Costs were provided by the ECA Executive Office (ECA-IIP/EX) budget staff. Labor costs were determined according to the grade level of each employee within ECA/EC. We used the following assumptions in estimating ECA/EC Direct Costs: • Estimated salary and benefits based on OPM's Washington, DC-area GS salary table, assuming Step 5; • Estimated salary and benefit costs based on grade levels, as recommended in an organizational analysis performed by ECA/EC; • Applied the OMB Circular A-76 standard of 32.85% for fringe benefits for each employee; • For FY07-FY12, applied a 3.1% COLA growth rate to salaries to account for inflation; • FY07 staffing model reflects the following expected staff additions: ○ *Compliance Division:* 1 GS-9, 1 GS-13; ○ *Private Sector Programs Division:* 1 Program officer at GS-13; and, ○ *Office of the Director:* 1 Deputy Director at GS-15. • Cycle times were established assuming standard processes and current performance standards; • FY08-FY12 costs were estimated factoring in the additional resources required as estimated in the workload analysis; and, • Non-application workload was held as fixed and all additional resources were applied 100% to application workload. For non-labor costs, ECA-IIP/EX provided detailed transaction data pulled from Corporate Financial Management System

(CFMS)for fund X0113.P (fee account) to identify ECA/EC direct costs for FY05 and FY06. Basic assumptions and or growth rates were applied to estimate all non-labor direct costs. ECA Bureau-Wide Cost Estimation ECA Bureau-wide costs represent indirect costs to provide joint or common services across the Bureau. No direct or cause and effect relationships are evident for these costs. Consequently, reasonable allocation methodologies were used to determine the appropriate amount of cost to allocate to ECA/EC for inclusion in the full cost model. ECA Bureau-wide costs were divided into two pools of cost: Labor and Non-labor. Then Application Development costs were separated from the Non-labor cost pool, as different cost allocation methodologies were used to perform cost allocation for this line item. Labor Costs • A 3.1% COLA growth rate was applied to the pro-rated figures. Non-labor Costs • The average percentage of PD&A costs to the overall Exchanges Support budget using FY05 and FY06 figures was calculated and used to derive the PD&A costs for FY07. • Using FY05 and FY06 figures, the average percentage of the individual PD&A line items to the total PD&A amount was calculated. These average rates were applied to the FY07 PD&A summary amount to calculate the individual PD&A line items in order to derive an estimated value for the Application Development line item for FY07. • Using FY05 and FY06 values, the Department developed the average percentage of ECA Application Development costs allocated to ECA/EC. The FY07 Application Development line item was then multiplied by the rate to develop pro-rated FY07 application development costs. • To forecast the ECA Bureau-wide figures for FY08-12, a 4% estimated growth rate for FY08 and a 2% estimated growth rate for FY09-FY12 was applied to the Exchanges Support line item as presented in the FY07 CBJ. The PD&A summary figure and individual line items were then calculated using the FY05-06 average percentage rates. • The same estimated growth rates were used to forecast the ECA FTE figures and develop ECA/EC to ECA FTE ratios for FY08-FY12. • Finally, the forecasted numbers were pro-rated using the forecasted FTE and Funds Managed ratios as previously described. Department-Wide Cost Estimation Department-wide costs were collected from the FY07 CBJ. This document provided actual costs for FY05, estimated costs for FY06, and budgeted requests for FY07 for both cost and FTE. The following variables were used to forecast the Department-wide costs for FY08-12, based on the figures presented in the FY07 CBJ: • A 3.1% COLA growth rate (applied to FY07 CBJ) for pro-rated personnel compensation costs; and • Average % increase from prior 2 years applied to FY07 budget figures for GSA rent figures. ECA/EC FY08 Budget Model The final step in the budgeting process was to align the budget requirement to its funding sources. ECA/EC has three sources of funds: 1. Exchange Visitor Program Fees—revenue generated by the Program Designation and Exchange Visitor Changes Fees; 2. DHS ICE Reimbursable Agreement—reimbursement for expenses to support SEVIS development, operations and maintenance; and, 3. Direct Appropriation—funding to cover operations of the ECA/EC G-1 Program and Coordination Division. To accomplish this, the ABC model was architected to align the costs of program outputs to their respective funding sources. Using the same basic model architecture, model periods for FY07-FY12 were established and the output volumes, activity drivers and budgetary resources were adjusted according to forecasts. Finally, the Department entered the forecasted costs of the organization, aligned those costs according to the appropriate funding source, and calculated the model to determine the total budget requirement to be recovered in Exchange Visitor Program user fees. Recommended Fees To set the recommended fees, the budget periods of the Exchange Visitor Program ABC Model were calculated to develop the cost of each fee category for FY07-12 based on forecasts. The units were calculated based on the expected periodicity of the fee defined in the fee structure. To set the recommended fee, the budget requirement and forecasted number of units for FY08 and FY09 were combined to reflect the two-year expected life cycle of the new fee. The Department divided the total cost by the total forecasted volume for each fee category to calculate the unit-based fee. The Chief Financial Officer Act of 1994 and OMB Circular A-25 require that fees be reviewed every two years. ECA/EC will operate and maintain the ABC model in order to monitor the program against its financial plan as part of ongoing operations. Every two years, ECA/EC will revise the model as necessary and evaluate the fee structure and fee amounts. As the Exchange Visitor Program evolves, any program changes will be reflected in the costs model and the fees will change accordingly. The new fees will be flat fees, i.e., they will not vary based on program size and exchange visitor volume. Future fees, however, may be higher or lower depending on how volumes and costs vary in the future. Regulatory Analysis Administrative Procedure Act This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business This rule is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act or any other act and, accordingly it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the proposed regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider the rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order, since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed the proposed regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62 Cultural Exchange Programs. Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 62 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 1184, 1258, 1372 (2001), 1701-1775 (2002); 22 U.S.C. 1431-1442, 2451-2460; 6501 (1998); 5 U.S.C. app. § 1-11 (1977); Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 200; E.O. 12048 of March 27, 1978; 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 168. 2. Revise § 62.17 to read as follows: § 62.17 Fees and charges.

(a)*Remittances.* Fees prescribed within the framework of 31 U.S.C. 9701 must be submitted as directed by the Department and must be in the amount prescribed by law or regulation.

(b)*Amounts of fees.* The following fees are prescribed for Fiscal Years 2008-2009 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2009):

(1)For filing an application for program designation and/or redesignation (Form DS-3036)—$1,748.

(2)For filing an application for exchange visitor status changes (i.e., extension beyond the maximum duration, change of category, reinstatement, reinstatement-update SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship authorization, and permission to issue)—$246. Subpart H—[Removed] § 62.90 [Removed] 3. Remove Subpart H—Fees and § 62.90. Dated: June 12, 2007. Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-11810 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3001 [Docket No. PI2007-1; Order No. 21] Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Order and request for comments. SUMMARY: Recent legislation alters the postal ratemaking process, and tasks the Postal Regulatory Commission with developing regulations to implement this process. This document invites public comment, in advance of formulating substantive rule proposals, on establishing service standards and performance measurement for market dominant products. DATES: Initial comments are due July 16, 2007; reply comments are due July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History, 72 FR 33261 (June 14, 2007). I. Background The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Public Law 109-435 (PAEA), directs that “the Postal Service shall, in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission, by regulation establish (and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a set of service standards for market-dominant products.” 39 U.S.C. 3691. It also directs the establishment of performance measurements for market-dominant products. 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D), (b)(2). The statute requires that these tasks be completed by December 20, 2007. Id. at 3691(a). Prior to fulfilling its consultatory role under 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) and its obligations under title III of the PAEA, the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing this Public Inquiry to obtain public comment on these topics. The Commission is establishing Docket No. PI2007-1 for the purpose of receiving such comments. The Commission intends to evaluate the comments received and use those suggestions to help carry out its service standards and performance measurement responsibilities under the PAEA. Docket PI2007-1 is established for the purpose of obtaining a broad spectrum of opinion to inform Commission consultation providing guidance to the Postal Service in connection with the Commission's responsibilities regarding service standards and performance measurement under the PAEA. *Id.* Interested persons are invited to provide written comments and suggestions on what the modern service standards should be and what system or systems of performance measurement should be utilized to evaluate whether those service standards have been met. Comments and suggestions are due by July 16, 2007. All comments and suggestions received will be available for review on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov.* Interested persons are further invited to review these submissions and provide replies, including follow-up comments and suggestions by July 30, 2007. Commenters are requested to specifically explain how suggestions will comport with the specific applicable statutory objectives and factors as set out below. A. Objectives The modern service standards for market dominant products shall be designed to meet the following objectives: 1. Enhance the value of postal services to both senders and recipients; 2. Preserve regular and effective access to postal services in all communities, including those in rural areas or where post offices are not self-sustaining; 3. Reasonably assure Postal Service customers delivery reliability, speed and frequency consistent with reasonable rates and best business practices; and 4. Provide a system of objective external performance measurements for each market dominant product as a basis for measurement of Postal Service performance. ( **Note:** An internal measurement system may be implemented instead with the Commission's approval.) B. Factors The modern service standards for market dominant products shall take into account the following factors: 1. The actual level of service that the Postal Service customers receive under any service guidelines previously established; 2. The degree of customer satisfaction with Postal Service performance in the acceptance, processing and delivery of mail; 3. The needs of Postal Service customers, including those with physical impairments; 4. Mail volumes and revenues projected for future years; 5. The projected growth in the number of addresses the Postal Service will be required to serve in future years; 6. The current and projected future cost of serving Postal Service customers; 7. The effect of changes in technology, demographics, and population distribution on the efficient and reliable operation of the postal delivery system; and 8. The policies of title 39 and other factors as the Postal Service determines are appropriate. II. Ordering Paragraphs *It is ordered:* 1. Docket No. PI2007-1 is established for the purpose of receiving comments to provide guidance to the Postal Service in connection with the Commission's obligations regarding service standards and performance measurement. 2. Interested persons are invited to provide written comments and suggestions on what the modern service standards should be and what system or systems of performance measurement should be utilized to evaluate whether those service standards have been met by July 16, 2007. 3. Reply comments also may be filed by July 30, 2007. 4. Kenneth E. Richardson, acting director of the Office of the Consumer Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public in this docket. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11939 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 405, 413, and 417 [CMS-1727-RCN] RIN 0938-AL54 Medicare Program; Provider Reimbursement Determinations and Appeals; Extension of Timeline for Publication of Final Rule AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Extension of timeline. SUMMARY: Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to publish a Medicare final rule no later than 3 years after the publication date of the proposed rule. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of final rules under exceptional circumstances. DATES: The timeline for the publication of a final rule is extended until June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morton Marcus,

(410)786-4477. Donald Romano,

(410)786-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to establish and publish a regular timeline for the publication of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the timeline may vary among different regulations based on differences in the complexity of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received, and other relevant factors, but may not be longer than 3 years except under exceptional circumstances. If the Secretary intends to vary the timeline for publication of a final rule, the Secretary is required to publish notice of the different timeline in the **Federal Register** no later than the timeline previously established for the final rule. The notice is required to include a brief explanation of the justification for the variation in timeline. II. Notice of Continuation In the June 25, 2004 **Federal Register** (69 FR 35716), we published a proposed rule that would update, clarify, and revise various provisions of the regulations governing provider reimbursement determinations, appeals before the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB), appeals before the intermediaries and Administrator review of decisions made by the PRRB. This notice extends the timeline for publication of the final rule. We are not able to meet the 3-year timeline for publication due to the complexity of the public comments received, and the complex policy and legal issues raised by those comments, which require extensive consultation and analysis. These extraordinary circumstances require an extension of the timeline; therefore this notice extends the timeline for publication of the final rule until June 25, 2008. Authority: Section 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395hh). (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: June 12, 2007. Ann Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department. [FR Doc. E7-11721 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 72 120 Friday, June 22, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2007-0007; FV-06-309] United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Reopening and extension of the comment period. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the comment period on possible development of United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine is reopened and extended. DATES: Comments must be received by August 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at: *http://www.regulations.gov* or the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington DC 20250-0240; or fax

(202)720-8871. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch,

(202)720-2185. The proposed United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine are available through the Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 2007 (72 FR 7593), requesting comments on the possible development of the United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine. The proposed standards would provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of tomatoes on the vine. Additionally, the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)also sought any comments related to the proposed standards that may be necessary to better serve the industry. The comment period ended April 17, 2007. A comment was received on behalf of a trade group representing growers and packers, expressing the need for additional time to comment. The group requested an extension to the comment period to allow review of the proposed voluntary standards and consider comments. After reviewing the request, AMS is reopening and extending the comment period in order to allow sufficient time for interested persons, including growers, packers, and trade groups to file comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: June 18, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-12064 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0023] SemBioSys Genetics, Inc.; Availability of an Environmental Assessment for a Field Release of Safflower Genetically Engineered To Produce Human Proinsulin AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have prepared an environmental assessment for a proposed field release involving a transgenic safflower line that has been genetically engineered to express, within the seeds, human proinsulin fused to an *Arabidopsis* oleosin molecule. The purpose of this field release is to obtain seed material for development of downstream insulin purification techniques. The environmental assessment is available to the public for review and comment. DATES: We will consider all comments received on or before July 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0023 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instruction for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0023, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0023. *Reading Room:* You may read the environmental assessment

(EA)and any comments we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. The EA is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_363103r_ea.pdf* . *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Patricia Beetham, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-0664. To obtain copies of the environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at

(301)734-0667; e-mail: *cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release in the environment of a regulated article. On December 18, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 06-363-103r) from SemBioSys Genetics, Inc., of West Sacramento, CA, for a field trial using a line of transgenic safflower. Permit application 06-363-103r describes a transgenic safflower ( *Carthamus tinctorius* ) cultivar that has been genetically engineered to express a fusion protein consisting of oleosin from *Arabidopsis thaliana* and human proinsulin exclusively within its seeds. Expression of this fusion protein is controlled by the phaseolin promoter and terminator sequences from *Phaseolus vulgaris* L. (common bean). Constructs were inserted into the recipient organisms via a disarmed *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* vector system. The seed from these safflower plants will be ground and used for the development of proinsulin purification technology and is not for commercial production. The subject safflower is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it has been genetically engineered utilizing a recombinant DNA technique that uses a vector derived from *Agrobacterium tumefaciens.* To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risks associated with the proposed release of the transgenic safflower, we have prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The EA was prepared in accordance with

(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),

(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),

(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-12098 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Food Stamp Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed extension of this collection. The information collection requirement described in this notice is OMB Number 0584-0064: Application and Certification of Food Stamp Households. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Patrick Waldron, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Mr. Waldron at

(703)305-2486 or via e-mail at *patrick.waldron@FNS.USDA.GOV* . All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, Room 800. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Mr. Waldron at

(703)305-2495. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Food Stamp Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices. *OMB Number:* 0584-0064. *Form Number:* None. *Expiration Date:* 7/31/07. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Title 7, Part 273 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)sets forth the Food Stamp Program requirements for the application, certification and continued eligibility for food stamp benefits. Listed below are the components of the forms and requirements included in the information collection. *Application to participate in the Food Stamp Program.* The application is filed by all applicant households when first applying to participate in the program and is used by the State agencies that administer the program to determine household eligibility. Based on FY 2006 data, we estimate that the burden associated with the application for certification at 3,473,171 hours for households (10,967,909 applications × 19 minutes (0.32 hrs) to complete the application). We estimate the burden for State agencies at 3,473,171 hours (10,967,909 applications × 19 minutes (0.32 hrs) to review the application). *Application for Recertification.* All food stamp households are assigned finite certification periods. In order to continue participating in the Food Stamp Program, ongoing households must apply for recertification using an application, which is very similar to the above-mentioned application for initial certification. The average certification period is 10 months in length although the length of the certification period may range from 1-month to 24-months depending on household circumstances. Based on FY 2006 data, we estimate that the burden associated with the application for recertification at 3,205,217 hours for households (10,121,739 applications × 19 minutes (0.32 hrs) to complete the application). We estimate the burden for State agencies at 3,205,217 hours (10,121,739 applications × 19 minutes (0.32 hrs) to review the application). *Monthly Report.* Three State agencies require a portion of their caseload to report changes in household circumstances through monthly reports. Because the household does not submit a separate monthly report when it submits the application for recertification, households are required to submit monthly reports 11 times a year. We estimate a total annual household reporting burden of 182,883 hours for the monthly report (142,506 households × 11 reports per year × 7 minutes or 0.12 hrs per report). We estimate a State agency burden of 287,387 hours (142,506 households × 11 reports per year × 11 minutes or 0.18 hrs per report). *Quarterly Report.* Currently, only one State, California, requires households to report changes in circumstances on a quarterly basis. Since households are not required to submit a separate quarterly report when they submit an application for recertification, the report is submitted three times a year. We estimate a household reporting burden of 319,787 hours for the quarterly report (799,469 households × 3 reports per year × 8 minutes or 0.13 hrs per report). We estimate a State agency burden of 479,681 hours (799,469 households × 3 reports per year × 12 minutes or 0.2 hrs per report). *Semiannual or Simplified Reporting.* Under the simplified reporting option, adopted by 47 States, most households report changes in their circumstances through a report that they normally submit every six months. In addition to the semiannual report, a household in a simplified reporting system must report when its gross income exceeds 130 percent of the poverty threshold. Based on recent information regarding State choices, we estimate that 10,788,683 households are currently subject to simplified reporting. Under simplified reporting, households submit one report annually (these households submit an application for recertification at least once every 12 months), and we estimate a household burden of 1,438,491 hours (10,788,683 reports × 8 minutes or .133 hrs per report) and a State agency burden of 1.977,925 hours (10,788,683 reports × 11 minutes or .18 hrs per report). *Change Reporting.* Households not subject to monthly, quarterly reporting or semiannual reporting must report most changes in household circumstances with 10 days of the date that the change becomes known to the household. Most households subject to change reporting are statutorily exempt from periodic reporting, primarily are those households with no earned income in which all adult members are elderly or disabled. We estimate a total household burden for change reporting at 138,737 hours per year (1,664,843 households submitting an average of 1 report per year at 5 minutes or 0.08 hrs per report). We estimate the annual State agency burden to process the reports at 305,221 hours (1,664,843 households submitting an average of 1 report per year with an agency processing time of 11 minutes or 0.18 hrs per report). *Notice of Eligibility or Denial.* Based on an estimated 21,089,658 notices issued annually, we estimate a total State agency burden of 632,690 hours based on 2 minutes (.03 hrs) to generate each report. We estimate a total annual burden of 367,412 hours to issue the following notices: Notice of Late/Incomplete Report, Adequate Notice (notice of reduction or termination based on information reported by the household), Notice of Adverse Action, Notice of Expiration of Certification, Request for Contact, and Notice of Missed Interview. The total is based on total of 3,365,104 responses with an average burden of 3 minutes or .03 hrs per response for the first five notices and 953,915 responses with an average burden of 1 minute or 0.167 hrs for the Notice of Missed Interview. *Recordkeeping burden only.* Local agencies are required to maintain client case records for three years and to perform duplicate participation checks on individual household members to ensure the member is not participating in more than one household. Data are not available on the actual number of local food stamp offices in each State or the actual number of workers (recordkeepers) that would be maintaining case files and performing duplicate participation checks. For the purpose of this burden package, we are using the number of food stamp project areas, which equals 2,724.

(A)*Case Files:* The caseload to be maintained is equal to the number of participating households and their subsequent files. The number of times recordkeepers must access these case files is equal to the number of documents expected to be filed or noted in the file annually. We anticipate minimal filing to involve a burden of 2 minutes per document. Including documentation (i.e. electronic files, caseworker written entry into the file, or hard copies of the document) for notices which were sent to the household and when, we anticipate a total of 127,192,305 documents/year. Annual recordkeeping burden associated with creating, filing, and maintaining household case files is estimated to be 4,239,744 burden hours (127,192,305 × 2/60 = 4,239,744).

(B)*Monitoring Duplicate Participation:* The estimated annual recordkeeping burden for maintaining this system that is automated by most States is based on the number of total applications (all approved and denied initial and recertification applications) expected to be received (20,250,469) and the average number of persons (2.3) in each applicant household. We estimate the number of duplicate participation checks (responses) that must be performed by State agencies at 46,576,079. Burden is estimated to be 15 seconds (or 0.00416666 hour) per response, for a total burden of 194,067 burden hours annually (20,250,469 × 2.3 × 15 seconds or 0.00416666 hrs).

(C)Total recordkeeping burden would be 4,433,811 hours. Burden per recordkeeper would be 1,627 hours. Summary of burden hours for public—state and local governments, potential applicants, and current participants: *Number of Respondents:* 21,089,698. *Annual responses:* 110,196,575. *Total burden hours:* 24,017,997. Dated: June 19, 2007. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. 07-3099 Filed 6-20-07; 12:06 pm]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

U.S. Code