Notices. Notice

14,811 words·~67 min read·/register/2007/08/07/07-3845

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

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. 2822] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding July 25, 2007. A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.

(BCPI)(1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by August 22, 2007. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. *Subject:* In the Matter of Maritel, Inc., and Mobex Network Services, LLC (WT Docket No. 04-257) *Number of Petitions Filed:* 2. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15320 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. 2821] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding July 20, 2007. A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.

(BCPI)(1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by August 22, 2007. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. *Subject:* In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and other Customer Information (CC Docket No. 96-115). IP-Enabled Services (WC Docket No. 04-36). *Number of Petitions Filed:* 3. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15344 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System SUMMARY: Background. On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Request for comment on information collection proposals The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility; b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FR 1373a,b: 7100-0301; or Regulation CC: 7100-0235, by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102. • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's web site at www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. Additionally, commenters should send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD)users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, without revision, of the following reports: *1. Report title:* Studies of Board Publications *Agency form number:* FR 1373a,b *OMB control number:* 7100-0301 *Frequency:* FR 1373a, one or two times per year; FR 1373b, small-panel survey: five times per year; large-panel survey, three times per year *Reporters:* FR 1373a: community-based educators, key stakeholders, and other educators who have previously requested consumer education materials from the Federal Reserve; FR 1373b: current subscribers of the publications being surveyed. *Annual reporting hours:* FR 1373a: survey, 300 hours; panel discussion, 68 hours. FR 1373b: small-panel, 80 hours; large-panel 300 hours. *Estimated average hours per response:* FR 1373a: survey, 30 minutes; panel discussion, 90 minutes. FR 1373b: small-panel, 15 minutes; large-panel 15 minutes. *Number of respondents:* FR 1373a: survey, 400; panel discussion, 45. FR 1373b: small-panel, 64; large-panel, 400. *General description of report:* This information collection is voluntary. The FR 1373a study is authorized pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (15 U.S.C. § 57a(f)); the FR 1373b study is authorized pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 248(i)). The specific information collected is not considered confidential. *Abstract:* The Federal Reserve uses the FR 1373a to: 1) conduct periodic reviews and evaluations of the consumer education materials and 2) develop and evaluate consumer education materials under consideration for distribution. The FR 1373b data help the Federal Reserve determine if it should continue to issue certain publications and, if so, whether the public would like to see changes in the method of information delivery, frequency, content, format, or appearance. *2. Report title:* Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation CC (Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFAA)) *Agency form number:* Reg CC *OMB control number:* 7100-0235 *Frequency:* Event-generated *Reporters:* State member banks and uninsured state branches and agencies of foreign banks *Annual reporting hours:* 210,882 hours *Estimated average hours per response:* Banks: Specific availability policy disclosure and initial disclosures, 1 minute; notice in specific policy disclosure, 3 minutes; notice of exceptions, 3 minutes; locations where employees accept consumer deposits, 15 minutes; annual notice of new automated teller machines (ATMs), 5 hours; ATM changes in policy, 20 hours; notice of nonpayment, 1 minute; expedited recredit for consumers, 15 minutes; expedited recredit for banks, 15 minutes; consumer awareness, 1 minute. Consumers: expedited recredit claim notice, 15 minutes. *Number of respondents:* 1,105 *General description of report:* This information collection is mandatory. Reg CC is authorized pursuant the EFAA, as amended, and the Check 21 Act (12 U.S.C. § 4008 and 12 U.S.C. 5014, respectively). Because the Federal Reserve does not collect any information, no issue of confidentiality arises. However, if, during a compliance examination of a financial institution, a violation or possible violation of the EFAA or the Check 21 Act is noted then information regarding such violation may be kept confidential pursuant to Section (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act. 5U.S.C. § 552(b)(8). *Abstract:* Regulation CC requires banks to make funds deposited in transaction accounts available within specified time periods, disclose their availability policies to customers, and begin accruing interest on such deposits promptly. The disclosures are intended to alert customers that their ability to use deposited funds may be delayed, prevent unintentional (and potentially costly) overdrafts, and allow customers to compare the policies of different banks before deciding at which bank to deposit funds. The regulation also requires notice to the depositary bank and to a customer of nonpayment of a check. Model disclosure forms, clauses, and notices are appended to the regulation to ease compliance. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-15298 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 22, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. Bennie F. Ryburn, Jr., and Bennie F. Ryburn III, as trustees of the Bennie F. Ryburn Family Trust* , all of Monticello, Arkansas; as a group acting in concert to retain control of Bradley Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First State Bank of Warren, both of Warren, Arkansas. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-15296 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 31, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. The Colonial BancGroup, Inc.* , Montgomery, Alabama; to merge with Citrus & Chemical Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby acquire its subsidiary, Citrus & Chemical Bank, both of Bartow, Florida. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-15297 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC or Commission”) is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through September 30, 2010, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its regulations under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (“Smokeless Tobacco Act” or the “Act”). That clearance expires on September 30, 2007. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2007 date of publication]. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Smokeless Tobacco Regulations: FTC File No. R011009” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered, with two complete copies, to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as described below. However, if the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearing labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-SmokelessTobaccoRegs* . To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-SmokelessTobaccoRegs* weblink. If this Notice appears at *www.regulations.gov,* you may also file an electronic comment through that web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. Comments also should be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted by facsimile to

(202)395-6974 because U.S. Postal Mail is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC web site, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy/htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be addressed to Rosemary Rosso, Senior Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202)326-2174. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2007, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the regulations under the Act, 16 CFR Part 307 (Control Number: 3084-0082). See 72 FR 27311. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the **ADDRESSES** section above, and must be received on or before September 6, 2007. **Description of the collection of information and proposed use:** The Smokeless Tobacco Act requires that manufacturers, packagers, and importers of smokeless tobacco products include one of three specified health warnings on packages and in advertisements. The Act also requires that each manufacturer, packager, and importer of smokeless tobacco products submit a plan to the Commission specifying the method to rotate, display, and distribute the warning statements required to appear in advertising and labeling. The Act requires the Commission to determine whether these plans provide for rotation, display, and distribution of warnings in compliance with the Act and implementing regulations. To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, all of the affected companies have previously filed plans. However, the plan submission requirement also applies to a company that amends its plan, or to a new company that enters the market. Burden statement: Commission staff estimates of paperwork burden are based on its knowledge of the smokeless tobacco industry and the time companies require to prepare rotational warning plans for submission to and review by the Commission. Staff’s estimates are further informed by discussions it has had with companies filing rotational plans or their representatives during the Commission’s review of submitted plans. In estimating total annual burden hours and associated labor costs, staff considered its experience gained from the plans submitted over the past five years. Based on these factors, staff estimates that the average annual paperwork burden for the three-year clearance period sought is no more than 1,000 hours, with associated annual labor cost of no more than $203,000. The five smokeless tobacco manufacturers that comprise the dominant share of the domestic smokeless tobacco market filed their plans with the Commission long ago. Additional annual reporting burden would occur only if a company introduces a new brand or otherwise opts to display the health warnings in a manner not previously approved. Under those circumstances, a company would need to file an amendment to its plan. Although it is not possible to predict whether any of these companies will seek to amend an existing approved plan (and possibly none will), staff conservatively assumes that each of these five smokeless tobacco companies will file one amendment per year, for a total burden of not more than 200 hours. This estimate is conservative because over the past five years, none of these companies filed amendments to their existing plans, and the Commission has not changed the relevant regulations. Commission staff believes it reasonable to assume that each of these five smokeless tobacco companies would spend no more than 40 hours to prepare an amended plan, and possibly considerably less time if the amendment was minor or applied only to one brand or brand variety. Commission staff also estimates that over the requested three-year clearance period up to four smokeless tobacco manufacturers, packagers, or importers will file an initial plan that includes rotational schemes for both packaging and advertising, for an additional burden of no more than 240 hours. This estimate is conservative because over the past five years, only four initial plans with both packaging and advertising schemes have been filed with the FTC. When the regulations were first proposed in 1986, representatives of the Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc. indicated that the six companies it represented would require approximately 700 to 800 hours in total (133 hours each) to complete the initial required plans, involving multiple brands, multiple brand varieties, and multiple forms of both packaging and advertising. The four initial plans submitted over the past five years are considerably less complex. Each of these plans involves only one or two brands or brand varieties, with more limited types of advertising and packaging. In addition, three of the four companies submitting plans had prior familiarity with the preparation of rotational warning plans. Further, increased computerization and improvements in electronic communication over the past 20 years have decreased the time needed for the preparation and drafting of rotational warning plans. Staff estimates that it would require no more than 60 hours to prepare such an initial plan, and that four initial plans will be submitted. Staff anticipates that over the next three years, up to four smokeless tobacco manufacturers, packagers, or importers may submit initial plans covering packaging alone, for an additional burden of no more than 160 hours. Over the past five years, the Commission has received four such plans. Because each of the plans involved only a single brand, a single form of packaging, and no advertising, the estimated time to prepare the plans is very modest. Staff anticipates that the companies that submit initial plans covering packaging alone will spend no more than 40 hours each to prepare the plans, and possibly considerably less. This estimate is conservative. Like other estimates stated herein, this is based on the total number of plans submitted to the FTC over the past five years, rather than annually. Finally, staff estimates that over the next three years, up to four amendments will be filed by companies other than the five largest smokeless tobacco manufacturers. Over the past five years, the Commission has received four such plans. Each of the amendments involved very modest changes to the existing plans. Staff estimates that four companies submitting similar amended plans will spend no more than 20 to 40 hours each to prepare the amendments, for an additional burden estimate of no more than 160 hours. As above, this is conservatively based on the total number of plans submitted to the FTC over the past five years, rather than annually. **Estimated total annual hours burden:** 1,000 hours Based on these assumptions, the total annual hours should not exceed 1,000 hours. [(5 companies x 40 hours each) + (4 companies x 60 hours each) + (4 companies x 40 hours each) + (4 companies x 40 hours each) = 760 total hours, rounded to one thousand hours] **Estimated labor costs:** $203,000 The total annualized labor cost to these companies should not exceed $203,000. This is based on the assumption that management or attorneys will account for 80% of the estimated 1,000 hours required to draft initial or amended plans, at an hourly rate of $250 per hour, and that clerical support will account for the remaining time (20%) at an hourly rate of $15. [Management and attorneys’ time (1,000 hours x 0.80 x $250 = $200,000) + clerical time (1,000 hours x 0.20 x $15 = $3,000) = $203,000] **Estimated annual non-labor cost burden:** $0 or minimal The applicable requirements impose minimal start-up costs. The companies may keep copies of their plans to ensure that labeling and advertising complies with the requirements of the Smokeless Tobacco Act. Such recordkeeping would require the use of office supplies, e.g., file folders and paper, all of which the companies should have on hand in the ordinary course of their business. While companies submitting initial plans may incur one-time capital expenditures for equipment used to print package labels in order to include the statutory health warnings or to prepare acetates for advertising, the warnings themselves disclose information completely supplied by the federal government. As such, the disclosure does not constitute a “collection of information” as it is defined in the regulations implementing the PRA, nor, by extension, do the financial resources expended in relation to it constitute paperwork “burden.” *See* 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Moreover, any expenditures relating to the statutory health warning requirements would likely be minimal in any event. For companies that have already submitted approved plans, there are no capital expenditures. After the Commission approves a plan for the rotation and display of the warnings required by the Smokeless Tobacco Act, the companies are required to make additional submissions to the Commission only if they choose to change the way they display the warnings. Once companies have prepared the artwork for printing the required warnings on package labels, there are no additional start-up costs associated with the display of the warnings on packaging. Similarly, once companies have prepared artwork and possibly acetates for the display of the warnings in advertising, there are no additional start-up costs associated with printing the warnings in those materials. William Blumenthal General Counsel [FR Doc. E7-15326 Filed 8-7-07: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through November 30, 2010 the current OMB clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission’s Rule Concerning Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions. The clearance is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2007. The FTC is also seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through December 31, 2010 the current OMB clearances for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission’s Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms and the Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule. Those clearances are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. DATES: Comments must be filed by October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered, with two complete copies, to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. However, if the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible. 1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by using the following weblink: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-warranrtypra* (and following the instructions on the Web-based form). To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the Web-based form at the weblink: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-warranrtypra.* If this notice appears at *www.regulations.gov* , you may also file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov* . As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Allyson Himelfarb, Investigator, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-292, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202)326-2505. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearances for the FTC’s

(1)Rule Concerning Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (OMB Control Number 3084-0111);

(2)Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (OMB Control Number 3084-0112); and

(3)Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule (OMB Control Number 3084-0113) (collectively, “Warranty Rules”). The FTC invites comments on:

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

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the **ADDRESSES** section above, and must be received on or before October 9, 2007. The Warranty Rules implement the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301 *et seq.* (“Warranty Act” or “Act”), which required the FTC to issue three rules relating to warranties on consumer products: the disclosure of written warranty terms and conditions; pre-sale availability of warranty terms; and rules establishing minimum standards for informal dispute settlement mechanisms that are incorporated into a written warranty. 2 2 40 FR 60168 (December 31, 1975). **Consumer Product Warranty Rule (“Warranty Rule”)** : The Warranty Rule, 16 CFR 701, specifies the information that must appear in a written warranty on a consumer product costing more than $15. The Rule tracks Section 102(a) of the Warranty Act, 3 specifying information that must appear in the written warranty and, for certain disclosures, mandates the exact language that must be used. 4 Neither the Warranty Rule nor the Act requires that a manufacturer or retailer warrant a consumer product in writing, but if they choose to do so, the warranty must comply with the Rule. 3 15 U.S.C. 2302(a). 4 40 FR 60168, 60169-60170. **The Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (“Pre-Sale Availability Rule”):** The Pre-Sale Availability Rule, 16 CFR 702, requires sellers and warrantors to make the text of any written warranty on a consumer product costing more than $15 available to the consumer before sale. Among other things, the Rule requires sellers to make the text of the warranty readily available either by

(1)displaying it in close proximity to the product or

(2)furnishing it on request and posting signs in prominent locations advising consumers that the warranty is available. The Rule requires warrantors to provide materials to enable sellers to comply with the Rule’s requirements and also sets out the methods by which warranty information can be made available before the sale if the product is sold through catalogs, mail order, or door-to-door sales. **Informal Dispute Settlement Rule:** The Informal Dispute Settlement Rule, 16 CFR 703, specifies the minimum standards which must be met by any informal dispute settlement mechanism that is incorporated into a written consumer product warranty and which the consumer must use before pursuing legal remedies in court. In enacting the Warranty Act, Congress recognized the potential benefits of consumer dispute mechanisms as an alternative to the judicial process. Section 110(a) of the Act sets out the Congressional policy to “encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms” (“IDSMs”) and erected a framework for their establishment. 5 As an incentive to warrantors to establish IDSMs, Congress provided in Section 110(a)(3) that warrantors may incorporate into their written consumer product warranties a requirement that a consumer must resort to an IDSM before pursuing a legal remedy under the Act for breach of warranty. 6 To ensure fairness to consumers, however, Congress also directed that, if a warrantor were to incorporate such a “prior resort requirement” into its written warranty, the warrantor must comply with the minimum standards set by the Commission for such IDSMs. 7 Section 110(a)(2) of the Act directed the Commission to establish those minimum standards. 8 5 15 U.S.C. 2310(a). 6 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). 7 *Id* . 8 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(2). The Informal Dispute Settlement Rule contains standards for IDSMs, including requirements concerning the mechanism’s structure (e.g., funding, staffing, and neutrality), the qualifications of staff or decision makers, the mechanism’s procedures for resolving disputes (e.g., notification, investigation, time limits for decisions, and follow-up), recordkeeping, and annual audits. The Rule requires that warrantors establish written operating procedures and provide copies of those procedures upon request. The Informal Dispute Settlement Rule applies only to those firms that choose to be bound by it by requiring consumers to use an IDSM. Neither the Rule nor the Act requires warrantors to set up IDSMs. A warrantor is free to set up an IDSM that does not comply with the Informal Dispute Settlement Rule as long as the warranty does not contain a prior resort requirement. Warranty Rule Burden Statement: **Total annual hours burden:** 107,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. In its 2004 submission to OMB, 9 the FTC estimated that the information collection burden of including the disclosures required by the Warranty Rule was approximately 34,000 hours per year. Although the Rule’s information collection requirements have not changed, this estimate increases the number of manufacturers subject to the Rule based on recent Census data. Nevertheless, because most warrantors would now disclose this information even if there were no statute or rule requiring them to do so, staff’s estimates likely overstate the PRA-related burden attributable to the Rule. Moreover, the Warranty Rule has been in effect since 1976, and warrantors have long since modified their warranties to include the information the Rule requires. 9 69 FR 60877 (Oct. 13, 2004). Based on conversations with various warrantors’ representatives over the years, staff has concluded that eight hours per year is a reasonable estimate of warrantors’ PRA-related burden attributable to the Warranty Rule. This estimate takes into account ensuring that new warranties and changes to existing warranties comply with the Rule. Based on recent Census data, staff now estimates that there are 134 large manufacturers and 13,235 small manufacturers covered by the Rule. 10 This results in an annual burden estimate of approximately 106,952 hours (13,369 total manufacturers x 8 hours of burden per year). 10 Because some manufacturer likely make products that are not priced above $15 or not intended for household use—and thus would not be subject to the Rules—this figure is likely an overstatement. **Total annual labor costs:** $14,118,000, rounded to the nearest thousand Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The work required to comply with the Warranty Rule—ensuring that new warranties and changes to existing warranties comply with the Rule—requires a mix of legal analysis and clerical support. Staff estimates that half of the total burden hours (53,476 hours) requires legal analysis at an average hourly wage of $250 for legal professionals, 11 resulting in a labor cost of $13,369,000. Assuming that the remaining half of the total burden hours requires clerical work at an average hourly wage of $14, the resulting labor cost is approximately $748,664. Thus, the total annual labor cost is approximately $14,117,664 ($13,369,000 for legal professionals + $748,664 for clerical workers). 11 Staff has derived an hourly wage rate for legal professionals based upon industry knowledge. The remaining wage rates used throughout this Notice reflect recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey. **Total annual capital or other non-labor costs:** $0 The Rule imposes no appreciable current capital or start-up costs. As stated above, warrantors have already modified their warranties to include the information the Rule requires. Rule compliance does not require the use of any capital goods, other than ordinary office equipment, which providers would already have available for general business use. Pre-Sale Availability Rule Burden Statement: **Total annual hours burden:** 2,328,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. In its 2004 submission to OMB, FTC staff estimated that the information collection burden of making the disclosures required by the Pre-Sale Availability Rule was approximately 2,760,000 hours per year. Although there has been no change in the Rule’s information collection requirements since 2004, staff has adjusted its previous estimate of the number of manufacturers subject to the Rule based on recent Census data. As discussed above, staff now estimates that there are approximately 134 large manufacturers and 13,235 small manufacturers subject to the Rule. Census data suggests that the number of retailers subject to the Rule has remained largely unchanged since 2004. Therefore, staff continues to estimate that there are 6,552 large retailers and 422,100 small retailers impacted by the Rule. Since 2001, online retailers have been posting warranty information on their web sites, reducing their burden of providing the required information. 12 While some online retailers make warranty information directly available on their web sites, the majority of them instead provide consumers with instructions on how to obtain that information. Moreover, some online retailers provide warranty information electronically in response to a consumer’s request for such information. After reviewing the 20 top online retailers’ websites for availability of warranty information, staff determined that a significant percentage of retailers (40% of the sample size) have begun to incorporate online methods of complying with the Rule—either by posting warranty information online or sending that information to consumers electronically. Accordingly, staff estimates that retailers’ annual hourly burden has decreased by twenty percent. 13 12 Staff took note of this change in 2004 but, due to the small number of retailers engaging in the practice at that time, declined to make an adjustment to its burden estimate. 13 This conservative estimate takes into account that staff reviewed a limited number of websites. Moreover, some online retailers also operate “brick-and-mortar” operations and still provide paper copies of warranties for review by customers who do not do business online. In 2004, staff estimated that large retailers spend an average of 26 hours per year and small retailers spend an average of 6 hours per year to comply with the Rule. Applying a 20% reduction to the FTC’s previous estimates, staff assumes that large retailers spend an average of 20.8 hours per year and small retailers spend an average 4.8 hours per year to comply with the Rule. Accordingly, the total annual burden for retailers is approximately 2,162,362 hours ((6,552 large retailers x 20.8 burden hours) + (422,100 small retailers x 4.8 burden hours)). Staff retains its previous estimate that large manufacturers spend an average of 52 hours per year and small manufacturers spend an average of 12 hours per year to comply with the Rule. Accordingly, the total annual burden incurred by manufacturers is approximately 165,788 hours ((134 large manufacturers x 52 hours) + (13,235 small manufacturers x 12 hours)). Thus, the total annual burden for all covered entities is approximately 2,328,150 hours (2,162,362 hours for retailers + 165,788 hours for manufacturers). **Total annual labor cost:** $32,594,000, rounded to the nearest thousand. The work required to comply with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule is predominantly clerical, e.g., providing copies of manufacturer warranties to retailers and retailer maintenance of them. Applying a clerical wage rate of $14/hour, the total annual labor cost burden is approximately $32,594,100 (2,328,150 hours x $14 per hour). **Total annual capital or other non-labor costs:** De minimis. The vast majority of retailers and warrantors already have developed systems to provide the information the Rule requires. Compliance by retailers typically entails keeping warranties on file, in binders or otherwise, and posting an inexpensive sign indicating warranty availability. 14 Manufacturer compliance entails providing retailers with a copy of the warranties included with their products. 14 Although some retailers may choose to display a more elaborate or expensive sign, that is not required by the Rule. Informal Dispute Settlement Rule Burden Statement: **Total annual hours burden:** 17,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. The primary burden from the Informal Dispute Settlement Rule comes from the recordkeeping requirements that apply to IDSMs, the use of which is incorporated into a consumer product warranty. In its 2004 submission to OMB, staff estimated that the recordkeeping and reporting burden was 24,625 hours per year and 9,235 hours per year for disclosure requirements or, cumulatively, approximately 30,000 hours. Although the Rule’s information collection requirements have not changed since 2004, the audits filed by the IDSMs indicate that on average fewer disputes were handled over the previous three years. In addition, representatives of the IDSMs indicate that relatively few consumers request a copy of their complete case file, and even fewer request a copy of the annual audit. These factors result in a decreased annual hours burden estimate for the IDSMs. The calculations underlying staff’s new estimates follow. *Recordkeeping* : The Rule requires IDSMs to maintain individual case files. Because maintaining individual case records is a necessary function for any IDSM, much of the burden would be incurred in the ordinary course of the IDSM’s business. Nonetheless, staff retains its previous estimate that maintaining individual case files imposes an additional burden of 30 minutes per case. The amount of work required will depend on the number of dispute resolution proceedings undertaken in each IDSM. The 2005 audit report for the BBB AUTO LINE states that, during calendar year 2005, it handled 23,672 warranty disputes on behalf of 12 manufacturers (including General Motors, Honda, Ford, Saturn, Volkswagen, Isuzu, and Nissan). 15 The BBB AUTO LINE audits from calendar years 2004 and 2003 indicate warranty disputes totaling 19,793 and 21,859, respectively. Thus, the average number of disputes filed annually through BBB AUTO LINE over this three-year period is 21,775 disputes. 16 According to the 2005 audit report for the BBB AUTO LINE, ten out of the twelve manufacturers reviewed include a “prior resort” requirement in their warranties, and thus are covered by the Informal Dispute Settlement Rule. Therefore, staff assumes that virtually all of the average 21,775 disputes handled by the BBB fall within the Rule. 15 So far as staff is aware, all or virtually all of the IDSMs subject to the Rule are within the auto industry. 16 Because the number of annual disputes filed has fluctuated, staff believes that taking the average number of disputes filed between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent available data) is the best way to project what will happen over the next three years of the OMB clearance for the Rule. Apart from the BBB audit report, audit reports were submitted on behalf of the National Center for Dispute Settlement (NCDS), the mechanism that handles dispute resolutions for Toyota, Lexus, DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi, and Porsche, all of which are covered by the Rule. The 2005 audit of the NCDS operations show that 2,154 disputes were filed in 2005. In addition, the NCDS audit shows that in 2004 and 2003, it handled 2,246 and 3,722 disputes, respectively. Thus, the NCDS handled an average of 2,707 disputes each year from 2003 through 2005. Based on the above figures, staff estimates that the average number of disputes handled annually by IDSMs covered by the Rule is approximately 24,482 (21,775 disputes handled by BBB AUTO LINE + 2,707 disputes handled by NCDS). Accordingly, staff estimates the total annual recordkeeping burden attributable to the Rule to be approximately 12,241 hours (24,482 disputes x 30 minutes of burden ÷ 60 minutes). *Reporting* : The Rule requires IDSMs to update indexes, complete semi-annual statistical summaries, and submit an annual audit report to the FTC. Staff retains its previous estimate that covered entities spend approximately 10 minutes per case for these activities, resulting in a total annual burden of approximately 4,080 hours (24,482 disputes x 10 minutes of burden ÷ 60 minutes). *Disclosure* : The Rule requires that information about the IDSM be disclosed in the written warranty. Any incremental costs to the warrantor of including this additional information in the warranty are negligible. The majority of disclosure burden would be borne by the IDSM, which is required to provide to interested consumers upon request copies of the various types of information the IDSM possesses, including annual audits. Consumers who have dealt with the IDSM also have a right to copies of their records. (IDSMs are permitted to charge for providing both types of information.) Based on discussions with representatives of the IDSMs, staff estimates that the burden imposed by the disclosure requirements is approximately 408 hours per year for the existing IDSMs to provide copies of this information. This estimate draws from the average number of consumers who file claims each year with the IDSMs (24,482) and the assumption that twenty percent of consumers individually request copies of the records pertaining to their disputes, or approximately 4,896 consumers. Staff estimates that copying such records would require approximately 5 minutes per consumer, including a negligible number of requests for copies of the annual audit. 17 Thus, the IDSMs currently operating under the Rule have an estimated total disclosure burden of 408 hours (4,896 consumers x 5 minutes of burden ÷ 60 minutes). 17 This estimate includes the additional amount of time required to copy the annual audit upon a consumer’s request. However, because staff has determined that a very small minority of consumers request a copy of the annual audit, this estimate is likely an overstatement. In addition, at least a portion of case files are provided to consumers electronically, which further would reduce the paperwork burden borne by the IDSMs. Accordingly, the total PRA-related annual hours burden attributed to the Rule is approximately 16,729 hours (12,241 hours for recordkeeping + 4,080 hours for reporting + 408 hours for disclosures). **Total annual labor cost:** $266,000, rounded to the nearest thousand. *Recordkeeping* : Staff assumes that IDSMs use skilled clerical or technical support staff to comply with the recordkeeping requirements contained in the Rule at an hourly rate of $16. Thus, the labor cost associated with the 12,241 annual burden hours for recordkeeping is approximately $195,856 (12,241 burden hours x $16 per hour). *Reporting* : Staff assumes that IDSMs also use skilled clerical support staff at an hourly rate of $16 to comply with the reporting requirements. Thus, the labor cost associated with the 4,080 annual burden hours for reporting is approximately $65,280 (4,080 burden hours x $16 per hour). *Disclosure* : Staff assumes that IDSMs use clerical support at an hourly rate of $12 to reproduce records and, therefore, the labor cost associated with the 408 annual burden hours for disclosures is approximately $4,896 (408 burden hours x $12 per hour). Accordingly, the combined total annual labor cost for PRA-related burden under the Rule is approximately $266,032 ($195,856 for recordkeeping + $65,280 for reporting + $4,896 for disclosures). **Total annual capital or other non-labor costs:** $329,000 *Total capital and start-up costs:* The Rule imposes no appreciable current capital or start-up costs. The vast majority of warrantors have already developed systems to retain the records and provide the disclosures required by the Rule. Rule compliance does not require the use of any capital goods, other than ordinary office equipment, to which providers would already have access. In addition, according to a representative of one IDSM, it has already developed systems to collect and retain information needed to produce the indexes and statistical summaries required by the Rule, and thus, estimated very low capital or start-up costs. The only additional cost imposed on IDSMs operating under the Rule that would not be incurred for other IDSMs is the annual audit requirement. According to representatives of each of the IDSMs currently operating under the Rule, the vast majority of costs associated with this requirement are the fees paid to the auditors and their staffs to perform the annual audit. Representatives of the IDSMs estimated a combined cost of $300,000 for both IDSMs currently operating under the Rule *Other non-labor costs:* $29,000 in copying costs. This total is based on estimated copying costs of 7 cents per page and several conservative assumptions. Staff estimates that the average dispute-related file is 35 pages long and that a typical annual audit file is approximately 200 pages in length. As discussed above, staff assumes that twenty percent of consumers using an IDSM currently operating under the Rule (approximately 4,896 consumers) request copies of the records relating to their disputes. Staff also estimates that a very small minority of consumers request a copy of the annual audit. This assumption is based on

(1)the number of consumer requests actually received by the IDSMs in the past; and

(2)the fact that the IDSMs’ annual audits are available online. For example, annual audits are available on the FTC’s web site, where consumers may view and or print pages as needed, at no cost to the IDSM. In addition, the Better Business Bureau makes available on its web site the annual audit of the BBB AUTO LINE. Therefore, staff conservatively estimates that only five percent of consumers using an IDSM covered by the Rule (approximately 1,224 consumers) will request a copy of the IDSM’s audit report. Thus, the total annual copying cost for dispute-related files is approximately $11,995 (35 pages per file x $.07 per page x 4,896 consumer requests) and the total annual copying cost for annual audit reports is approximately $17,136 (200 pages per audit report x $.07 per page x 1,224 consumer requests). Accordingly, the total cost attributed to copying under the Rule is approximately $29,131 and the total non-labor cost under the Rule is approximately $329,131 ($300,000 for auditor fees + $29,131 for copying costs). William Blumenthal General Counsel [FR Doc. E7-15328 Filed 8-6-07: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 051 0044] Colegio de Optometras de Puerto Rico and Edgar Dávila García, O.D., and Carlos Rivera Alonso, O.D.; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Colegio de Optometras, File No. 051 0044,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov* . 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan E. Raitt, FTC Northeast Region, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,

(212)607-2829. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 30, 2007), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/07/index.htm* . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling

(202)326-2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a proposed consent order with the Colegio de Optometras de Puerto Rico (“the Colegio”) and two of its officers, Edgar Dávila García, O.D., and Carlos Rivera Alonso, O.D. The agreement settles charges that the Colegio, acting as a combination of otherwise competing optometrists, and in combination with individual optometrists, including Drs. Dávila and Rivera, violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by facilitating, negotiating, entering into, and implementing express or implied agreements on price and other competitively significant terms; negotiating fees and other competitively significant terms in vision and health plan contracts on behalf of the Colegio’s members; and refusing or threatening to refuse to deal with such entities except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should make the proposed order final. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order, or to modify its terms in any way. Further, the proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the Colegio or Drs. Dávila and Rivera that any of them violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true. The Complaint The allegations of the complaint are summarized below. The Colegio is a not-for-profit, incorporated professional association of optometrists that is organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“Puerto Rico”), with its office and principal place of business in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Colegio has approximately 500 member optometrists, constituting all of the optometrists licensed to practice in Puerto Rico. Except to the extent that competition has been restrained, the member optometrists of Colegio have been, and are now, in competition with each other for the provision of optometry services in Puerto Rico. Dr. Dávila is a licensed optometrist who provides vision care services to patients for a fee. Dr. Dávila served as the Treasurer of the Colegio from 2002 through 2004; he also served as the President of the Colegio’s Health Plans Commission from 2001 through 2004. Dr. Rivera is a licensed optometrist who provides vision care services to patients for a fee. Dr. Rivera served as President-Elect of the Colegio in 2004, and then as President from October 2004 through September 2006. Since 1997, Ivision International Inc. (“Ivision”) has offered vision care services and products in Puerto Rico. Ivision contracts with Puerto Rico health plans to administer vision plans and provide vision care services and products to covered patients. The health plans pay Ivision on a capitated basis, per individual member. Ivision then contracts with Puerto Rico optometrists to provide these services. By August of 2004, Ivision had almost 130 optometrists—located all over Puerto Rico—in its network, making it very attractive to health plans. In June and July 2004, Ivision sent out announcements to optometrists regarding contracts with several new health plans (many of which previously had contracted only directly with optometrists). Ivision scheduled meetings with optometrists to be held that August to discuss the mechanics of implementing these new contracts. Under these new contracts, Ivision paid optometrists the same fees as in its contracts with other health plans. As a result of these new contracts, the optometrists would lose much if not all of their more lucrative direct business with these plans. In early August, Ivision began receiving calls from optometrists, some of whom were Colegio representatives, complaining about the reimbursement structure and rates for the new health plan contracts, and threatening that if Ivision did not pay more, it would lose optometrists. In addition, as part of a collective effort to force Ivision to raise its rates, Colegio representatives and other optometrists contacted additional optometrists and urged them to stop participating in Ivision’s network. On August 22, Ivision met with its providers. Just prior to that meeting, the optometrists held their own meeting at which a chart comparing Ivision’s rates with those of other health plans had been distributed. During their meeting with Ivision, the optometrists demanded that Ivision pay them higher reimbursement rates, in the form of one fee for an examination and another fee for refraction, instead of paying a flat fee for both services. Dr. Rivera, who was an Ivision provider, stated that he was the President-Elect of the Colegio and that he knew or was familiar with all the optometrists in Puerto Rico. He indicated that as President-Elect of the Colegio he had the authority to meet with Ivision and discuss rates on behalf of the Colegio’s members. Dr. Rivera also indicated that if Ivision did not raise reimbursement rates, the Colegio would make sure that Ivision had no providers left in Puerto Rico. In response to Ivision’s assertion that it could enlist other providers, Dr. Rivera maintained that he could get to those providers who had not yet joined Ivision and that Ivision would not have any optometrists in its network. The next day, Dr. Dávila circulated a letter on Colegio letterhead addressed to all of the members of the Colegio concerning Ivision’s new health plan contracts. Dr. Dávila, who was not an Ivision provider, wrote this letter in his capacity as President of the Colegio’s Health Plans Commission. In the letter, he urged optometrists not to participate in the Ivision network, and informed the Colegio members that the Colegio was going to develop a policy to be followed with respect to the Ivision plan. He concluded the letter by stating that to continue onward, all of the providers were needed, and that this was not a battle the Colegio could confront alone. Two days later, a Colegio advisor and a former Colegio officer met with Ivision representatives and told them that Ivision was going to lose all of its providers and that if it did not pay the providers what they deserved, they would quit. At a later meeting, the same former Colegio officer told Ivision’s President that the providers were really angry and wanted to destroy Ivision. The President also was told that if Ivision agreed to pay a certain amount (matching another plan’s fee), the providers would forget Ivision’s other problems and “everything would go away.” In September 2004, there were a number of meetings held by the Colegio Board of Directors and by Colegio members discussing how to deal with Ivision. At one meeting, the Colegio members present were advised to resign immediately from Ivision network to force Ivision to increase its reimbursement rates. At another meeting, attended by several Colegio members, Dr. Rivera asked for a show of hands as to who was going to remain in the Ivision network. No optometrist raised a hand. Several optometrists voiced complaints about Ivision’s reimbursement rates and discussed leaving Ivision; an offer was made to circulate a sample letter terminating the Ivision contract. A former Colegio officer who announced his resignation from Ivision at that meeting followed this up a few days later by sending letters to certain health plans, stating that because of Ivision’s reimbursement structure and rates, the optometrists had decided to resign en masse from Ivision, which would cause a great uproar among the plans’ subscribers. In early October 2004, some Colegio representatives, including Dr. Dávila and Dr. Rivera, met with officials from some of the health plans with which Ivision contracted. The Colegio representatives requested that the health plans pay optometrists higher fees. They also asked the health plan officials to put pressure on Ivision, and informed them that providers were not going to remain in the Ivision network if the reimbursement rates did not increase. The Colegio’s and Drs. Dávila’s and Rivera’s efforts to obtain higher reimbursement rates from Ivision succeeded. By mid-October, almost 40 Colegio members had left the Ivision network. These optometrists either quit outright by notifying Ivision that they were cancelling their optometrist agreements (some in similarly-worded letters), or by simply refusing service to those patients enrolled in Ivision plans, so that Ivision was forced to terminate these doctors as optometrists. In order to maintain an effective network, retain its remaining optometrists and recruit new optometrists in the face of the Colegio’s efforts and success in organizing a boycott, Ivision was forced to substantially raise its reimbursement rates. In November 2004, Ivision significantly increased its reimbursement rate for an eye examination and the dispensing of eye glasses; it made a similar increase for an examination and the dispensing of contact lenses. Ivision was also forced to waive monetary amounts that some optometrists owed it. In addition to the conduct outlined above, the Colegio and Drs. Dávila and Rivera orchestrated collective negotiations with at least two other plans. Their efforts included several meetings with and letters to a certain health plan, all directed at having that plan amend its contracts with optometrists so that the optometrists could provide additional higher paying services for the plan. Indeed, to increase its negotiating leverage with this plan, Dr. Dávila sent a letter to all Colegio members urging them not to join the plan until these issues were resolved to the Colegio’s satisfaction. Further, officers of the Colegio on several occasions approached another health plan and attempted to negotiate higher reimbursement levels for its members who service that plan. Thus far, these two health plans have been able to resist the collective action exerted by the Colegio. Respondents’ price fixing and concerted refusal to deal, and the agreements, acts, and practices described above, have not been, and are not, reasonably related to any efficiency-enhancing integration among the optometrist members of the Colegio. By the acts set forth in the Complaint, the Colegio and Drs. Dávila and Rivera violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Proposed Consent Order The proposed consent order is designed to prevent a recurrence of the illegal concerted actions alleged in the complaint, while allowing the Colegio and its members, including Drs. Dávila and Rivera, to engage in legitimate joint conduct. The proposed order is similar to recent consent orders that the Commission has issued to settle charges that physician groups engaged in unlawful agreements refusing to deal with health plans. 2 2 New Century Health Quality Alliance, Inc., File No. 051-0137 (Oct. 6, 2006); Puerto Rico Association of Endodontists, Corp., File No 051-0170 (Aug. 29, 2006). The proposed order’s specific provisions are as follows: Paragraph II.A prohibits the Colegio, Dr. Dávila, and Dr. Rivera, from entering into or facilitating agreements among any optometrists with respect to their provision of optometry services, including:

(1)Negotiating on behalf of any optometrist with any payor;

(2)dealing, refusing to deal, or threatening to refuse to deal with any payor;

(3)regarding any term upon which any optometrist deals, or is willing to deal, with any payor, including, but not limited to, price terms; or

(4)not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal with any payor other than through the Colegio. Other parts of Paragraph II reinforce these general prohibitions. Paragraph II.B prohibits the Colegio, Dr. Dávila, and Dr. Rivera from exchanging or facilitating the transfer of information among optometrists concerning any optometrist’s willingness to deal with a payor, or the terms or conditions, including any price terms, on which the optometrist is willing to deal. Paragraph II.C prohibits the Colegio, Dr. Dávila, and Dr. Rivera from attempting to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraphs II.A or II.B. Paragraph II.D prohibits the Colegio from encouraging, pressuring, or attempting to induce any person to engage in any action that would be prohibited by Paragraphs II.A through II.C. Paragraph III requires that the Colegio, Dr. Dávila, and Dr. Rivera for three years from the date the Order becomes final, notify the Secretary of the Commission in writing at least sixty days prior to:

(1)participating in, organizing, or facilitating any discussion or understanding with or among any optometrists in any qualified joint arrangement relating to price or other terms or conditions of dealing with any payor; or

(2)contacting a payor to negotiate or enter into any agreement concerning price or other terms or conditions of dealing with any payor, on behalf of any optometrists or any optometrist group practice in such arrangement. The remaining provisions of Paragraph III contain other standard notification and compliance-related provisions. Paragraph IV requires the Colegio to translate the Order and the Complaint into Spanish, distribute the translated Order and Complaint to Colegio members, as well as payors, and annually publish these documents in official annual reports or newsletters. The proposed order will expire in 20 years. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E7-15356 Filed 8-6-07: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Final Notice; Implementation of Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act for Fiscal Year 2008 FMAP AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DHHS. ACTION: Final notice. SUMMARY: This notice describes the procedure utilized for implementing Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109-171 for fiscal year 2008. Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act provides for a modification of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages for any state which has a significant number of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina. This notice also includes an interpretation of evacuee. HHS issued a notice on January 25, 2007, announcing for public comment, a proposed methodology to implement the requirements of Section 6053(b). The notice allowed 30 days for public comment. We received one timely comment from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The comment letter contained several suggestions which are summarized and responded to below. DATES: The figures described in this notice apply to FY 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Musco or Robert Stewart, Office of Health Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 447D—Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201,

(202)690-6870. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Federal Medical Assistance Percentages

(FMAP)are used to determine the amount of Federal matching for state expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF)Contingency Funds, matching funds for the Child Care and Development Fund, Title IV-E Foster Care Maintenance payments, Adoption Assistance payments, and state medical and medical insurance expenditures for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages each year. The Secretary is to calculate the percentages, using formulas in sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8)(B), from the Department of Commerce's statistics of average income per person in each state and for the Nation as a whole. The percentages are within the upper and lower limits given in section 1905(b) of the Act. The percentages to be applied to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are specified in statute, and thus are not based on the statutory formula that determines the percentages for the 50 states. The “Federal Medical Assistance Percentages” are for Medicaid. The “enhanced FMAP” (EFMAP), for a state for a fiscal year, is equal to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (as defined in the first sentence of section 1905(b)) for the state increased by a number of percentage points equal to 30 percent of the number of percentage points by which

(1)such Federal medical assistance percentage for the state, is less than 100 percent;

(2)but in no case shall the enhanced FMAP for a state exceed 85 percent. The “Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages” are for use in the State Children's Health Insurance Program under Title XXI, and in the Medicaid program for certain children for expenditures for medical assistance described in sections 1905(u)(2) and 1905(u)(3) of the Social Security Act. On November 30, 2006, at 71 FR 69209, we published the FMAP and Enhanced FMAP rates for each state for October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 (fiscal year 2008). B. Section 6053(b) of the DRA Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act

(b)of the DRA starting with the Fiscal Year 2008 FMAPs, since the 2008 FMAP calculation will be the first year to include 2005 data. On January 25, 2007 at 72 FR 3391, we proposed a methodology to implement Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act that would take advantage of the way in which state population is usually calculated. HHS believes this methodology would comply with our understanding of Congressional intent in the first year, and raise the FMAP slightly for any affected state. C. Proposed Methodology Section 6053(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act

(DRA)of 2005 requires that calculations used in computing the FMAPs disregard evacuees and any income attributable to them who were evacuated to and live in a state, other than their state of residence, as of October 1, 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The DRA defines “evacuee” as “an affected individual who has been displaced to another state” (Sec. 6201(b)(3)). This provision applies to any state that the Secretary of HHS determines has a significant number of Katrina evacuees. The first adjustment that must take place under Section 6053(b) of the DRA is to the state population estimate by removing all Katrina evacuees in each state that were evacuated across state lines. Because the state population estimates used in the 2005 Per Capita Personal Income estimates are from July 1, 2005, which is prior to Hurricane Katrina, these Katrina evacuees do not appear in the data that is the basis for the state population estimates for any state covered by this provision. Thus, while Section 6053(b) of the DRA requires it, no adjustment to this data is necessary to disregard Katrina evacuees. The second adjustment that must take place under Section 6053(b) of the DRA is to state personal income by removing all income that is attributed to Katrina evacuees. Implementing Section 6053(b) is complex because the data related to personal income are not detailed enough to fully conform to all of the provision's requirements (see the detailed explanation of considerations mentioned in the **Federal Register** notice of January 25, 2007 at 72 FR 3391). The methodology to adjust for income proposes (see 72 FR 3391) to include the available data on FEMA disaster assistance adjustments and interstate population dispersal adjustments (BEA's estimate of governmental transfer receipts that were paid to Hurricane Katrina evacuees while they were living in the states to which they had been evacuated). Transfer receipts include payments such as Medicaid or TANF. BEA estimates these interstate population dispersal adjustments based on the evacuee population that moved across state lines after the hurricane, and the average transfer payment per evacuee. The evacuee population is based on the FEMA Current Location Report. The methodology described above (and in more detail at 72 FR 3391) was used to make FMAP adjustments to accommodate the requirements of Section 6053(b) with the available data. The calculations this year result in a positive impact on any affected state (i.e., increasing FMAPs). It is unclear what effect Section 6053(b) will have on future years should this provision carry forward beyond fiscal year 2008. According to Section 6053(b), the Secretary of HHS must apply this provision to any state that the Secretary determines has a significant number of Katrina evacuees. However, the statute provides HHS no guidance on how to determine what number of evacuees constitutes a “significant number.” As a result, HHS attempted to provide an objective means to determine a “significant number” of evacuees. HHS had chosen to determine significance by calculating the numbers of evacuees beyond two standard deviations from the mean of all states' number of evacuees. Measures of significance generally involve how observations vary in their distance from the average of all observations in their particular group. In this case, the observations are the number of evacuees relocated to each of the respective states. A measure used frequently to determine significance is the standard deviation from the mean or average. We proposed to use as the measure of a significantly affected state those that incurred an influx of evacuees greater than twice the standard deviation from the mean of all states. Using the BEA estimates for the number of evacuees relocated to each state (except as noted below for Louisiana) we calculated an average influx of evacuees for all states of 7,159. The distribution of evacuees into all states around this average produces a standard deviation of 22,375. Therefore, we propose to apply the provisions of Section 6053(b) to any state with an influx of evacuees greater than 51,909 (the mean plus two standard deviations). This methodology specified only Texas, with 154,018 evacuees, had such a significant influx of evacuees. Therefore, we proposed to apply Section 6053(b) to Texas. Because the DRA defines “evacuee” as “an affected individual who has been displaced to another state” (Sec. 6201(b)(3)), we proposed that Louisiana not be considered an affected state. Although there were intra-state evacuations within Louisiana, the provision is intended to apply only to any state that took in a significant number of evacuees from another state. Using the methodology described above, we calculated revised FMAPs and EFMAPs for 2008. The table below presents the 2008 FMAPs and the revised 2008 FMAPs with the proposed adjustment, and the 2008 EFMAPs and the revised 2008 EFMAPs. Texas Calculated 2008 2008 with proposed adjustment FMAP 60.53 60.56 EFMAP 72.37 72.39 As seen in the tables above, applying the proposed adjustment increased the FMAP and EFMAP for Texas. D. Analysis of and Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Methodology In reviewing and responding to comments, HHS consulted with individuals internal to HHS and individuals at the Commerce Department. *Comment:* Mitigate the “mismatch” between population and income estimates by adjusting downward total income for Texas to eliminate income associated with Katrina evacuees. Personal income for Texas should be adjusted by removing approximately $4.7 billion in personal income attributable to Katrina evacuees. The rationale provided states that income and wages of Katrina evacuees are not included in the proposed adjustment, nor are the use of savings and contributions from charitable sources. Additionally, Texas states that per capita income increased in FY 2005 by more than historical averages. *Response:* As described in the proposed methodology, both income and population must be taken into account to implement Section 6053(b) of the DRA. No methodology is provided by Texas for the arrival at the estimate of income attributable to Katrina evacuees in Texas. BEA could not provide separable income estimates for segments of state populations as a verifiable source to replicate the findings. Further, several of the funding sources cited by Texas are not sources that would affect per capita income (use of savings accounts and charitable contributions). The amount of income Texas suggests be eliminated as attributable to Katrina evacuees would indicate a per capita income for these evacuees of in excess of $30,000 per year, when in fact these individuals were relocated to other states for only about one-third of the 2005 year. Additionally, an increase in per capita income in a particular year may have multiple factors contributing to the increase. A review of BEA data on state per capita income levels for Texas over the past two decades shows the 2005 increase is not unusual. Texas experienced peaks in year to year per capita percent changes in 1990, 1997, and 2000 at rates of change greater than that experienced in 2005. *Comment:* An alternate to adjusting Texas total income is to adjust upward Texas' population to reflect the number of Katrina evacuees residing in Texas after July 1, 2005. Adjust the population estimate for Texas by adding 154,018 Katrina evacuees to the 2005 state population estimate. *Response:* As required by Section 6053(b) of the DRA, and reiterated above, the methodology for implementing this provision specifically indicates that calculations used in computing the FMAPs disregard evacuees and any income attributable to them. The addition to a state's population of any number attributable to Katrina evacuees is not consistent with the statute. E. Time Frame for the DRA Adjustment In the January 25, 2007 **Federal Register** notice, we noted that Section 6053(b) does not provide an express sunset for the FMAP adjustments even though it did not seem reasonable to make such adjustments in perpetuity. We indicated that it was not reasonable to consider individuals to be evacuees long after they may have established residency and employment in their host state. We expressed concern that data to accurately identify the number of evacuees and their income, already difficult to obtain, would be unavailable and/or unreliable. And we observed that compliance with Section 6053(b) of the DRA could have a negative impact on qualifying states in years beyond FY 2008, which could not have been intended by Congress. Because of the above, HHS proposed several approaches to interpret the term “evacuee” narrowly to ensure that an adjustment is made only to the extent warranted to address the sudden influx directly resulting from Hurricane Katrina. We suggested three alternative approaches which were offered for public comment:

(1)Consider individuals to be Hurricane Katrina evacuees for up to 18 months following displacement to another state,

(2)consider an individual to be an evacuee while receiving FEMA Hurricane Katrina assistance, and

(3)consider individuals to be evacuees while reliable data remains available and sufficient to identify evacuees and their income in order to carry out the provisions of the DRA. While no comments were received on any of the proposed HHS definitions of an evacuee or offers of alternative definitions, HHS examined each of the approaches identified above in reaching a decision on the interpretation of an evacuee and its potential impact on future FMAP calculations. While approach 1 uses a specific time frame (18 months following evacuation), the time frame itself is arbitrary and we believe it is unreasonable to consider a person to be considered an evacuee once they have established residency and become integrated into the economy of their host state. Former Katrina evacuees will now be reported by their place of residence for 2006 and beyond, no longer separately identified as Katrina evacuees, and will be included in the population and income estimates collected by BEA for their states of residence. HHS has learned that approach 2 (FEMA assistance) will not be viable because Katrina FEMA assistance will not be separately identified from all other FEMA assistance to identify evacuees beyond that which was provided for 2005. Because of the practical difficulty in calculating an adjustment, we are adopting the third approach, limiting the definition of evacuee to the time period for which reliable data remains available, because the existence of reliable data is essential to identifying individuals as evacuees. It is clear from the current effort to comply with the DRA provisions that data to support the calculations is limited at best. While information on the number of Katrina evacuees has been available, data on income attributed to evacuees has been extremely limited. BEA, which collects the data upon which FMAP calculations are made, was limited in its ability to isolate income data for Katrina evacuees. Only some of the interstate income data, such as governmental transfer receipts (TANF, Medicaid, etc.), attributable to Katrina evacuees was available, while none of a state(s)' wages and salaries paid to Katrina evacuees who moved to the host state could be isolated to determine personal income data for these evacuees. It was therefore technically difficult to perform the calculations for the current year. We do not believe that reliable data will be available to track either the number or the income of evacuees to make calculations for the FMAP beyond FY 2008. It is our understanding that BEA will not undertake any continuing state estimates of the number of Katrina evacuees or income attributed to them beyond what already has been done for 2005. Moreover, we believe the adjustment time frame is sufficiently long for individuals to become an integral part of, with economic and social ties to, the State in which they have been present. We continue to believe that the intent of the statutory adjustment was to relieve the temporary burden on host states of a sudden influx of evacuees who were not integrated into the host state economy. Thus we believe it is unreasonable to consider a person to be an evacuee once they have established residency and become integrated into the economy in their host state. For the above reasons, HHS has determined to interpret the term “evacuee” to be limited to the time period for which reliable data is available on the number and income of evacuees. Based on our current understanding of the available data sources, this interpretation means that there would be no basis for performing the calculations specified in Section 6053(b) of the DRA beyond the current year calculations for the FY 2008 FMAP. F. Final FMAP and EFMAP Percentages for State(s) Affected by Hurricane Katrina Based on the findings of our review of the comments received, we believe the methodology as described herein, and in more detail at 72 FR 3391, is the most appropriate method, given the available information, for implementing Section 6053(b) of the DRA. As such, only the FMAP and EFMAP percentages for the state of Texas are affected. The percentages for Texas are as follows: Texas Calculated 2008 2008 with adjustment for Section 6053(b) FMAP 60.53 60.56 EFMAP 72.37 72.39 G. Effective Dates The percentages listed will be effective for each of the four

(4)quarter-year periods in the period beginning October 1, 2007 and ending September 30, 2008 (fiscal year 2008). (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.778: Medical Assistance Program; 93.767: State Children's Health Insurance Program) Dated: May 21, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. E7-15321 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at the Dow Chemical Company, Madison, Illinios, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

(SEC)under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On June 22, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: Atomic Weapons Employer

(AWE)employees who were monitored or should have been monitored for exposure to thorium radionuclides while working at the Dow Chemical Company site in Madison, Illinois for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1960, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. This designation became effective on July 22, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384 *l* (14)(C). Hence, beginning on July 22, 2007, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV.* Dated: August 2, 2007. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 07-3845 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 21

Traces to 21 documents

U.S. Code