Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-12-20 · National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) · Notices

Notices. Notice

42,504 words·~193 min read·/register/2007/12/20/07-6110

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

BILLING CODE 6820-FN-M NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collections described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before January 22, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-713-1694 or fax number 301-713-7409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for these information collections on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57351). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points:
(a)Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA;
(b)the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and
(e)whether small businesses are affected by these collections. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections: 1. *Title:* Statistical Research in Archival Records Containing Personal Information. *OMB number:* 3095-0002. *Agency form number:* None. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Individuals. *Estimated number of respondents:* 1. *Estimated time per response:* 7 hours. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 7 hours. *Abstract:* The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1256.28 and 36 CFR 1256.56. Respondents are researchers who wish to do biomedical statistical research in archival records containing highly personal information. NARA needs the information to evaluate requests for access to ensure that the requester meets the criteria in 36 CFR 1256.28 and that the proper safeguards will be made to protect the information. 2. *Title:* Application and Permit for Use of Space in Presidential Library and Grounds. *OMB number:* 3095-0024. *Agency form number:* NA Form 16011. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Private organizations. *Estimated number of respondents:* 1,000. *Estimated time per response:* 20 minutes. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 333 hours. *Abstract:* The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1280.94. The application is submitted to a Presidential library to request the use of space in the library for a privately sponsored activity. NARA uses the information to determine whether use will meet the criteria in 36 CFR 1280.94 and to schedule the date. 3. *Title:* Request to use personal paper-to-paper copiers at the National Archives at the College Park facility. *OMB number:* 3095-0035. *Agency form number:* None. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated number of respondents:* 5. *Estimated time per response:* 3 hours. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 15 hours. *Abstract:* The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1254.86. Respondents are organizations that want to make paper-to-paper copies of archival holdings with their personal copiers. NARA uses the information to determine whether the request meets the criteria in 36 CFR 1254.86 and to schedule the limited space available. Dated: December 13, 2007. Martha Morphy, Assistant Archivist for Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-24744 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Determination of Trade Surplus in Certain Sugar and Syrup Goods and Sugar Containing Products of Chile, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with relevant provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)is providing notice of its determination of the trade surplus in certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. As described below, the level of a country's trade surplus in these goods relates to the quantity of sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products for which the United States grants preferential tariff treatment under
(i)the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement (Chile FTA), in the case of Chile;
(ii)the United States—Morocco Free Trade Agreement (Morocco FTA), in the case of Morocco; and
(iii)the Dominican Republic—Central America—United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), in the case of the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. DATES: *Effective Date:* December 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Leslie O'Connor, Director of Agricultural Affairs, Office of Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie O'Connor, Office of Agricultural Affairs, 202-395-6127. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Chile:* Pursuant to section 201 of the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 108-77; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 7746 of December 30, 2003 (68 FR 75789) implemented the Chile FTA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTS to reflect the tariff and rules of origin treatment provided for in the Chile FTA. U.S. Note 12(a) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the **Federal Register** a determination of the amount of Chile's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in Harmonized System
(HS)subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.20, 1702.30, 1702.40, 1702.60, 1702.90, 1806.10, 2101.12, 2101.20, and 2106.90, except that Chile's imports of U.S. goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the Chile FTA are not included in the calculation of Chile's trade surplus. U.S. Note 12(b) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile entered under subheading 9911.17.05 in an amount equal to the lesser of Chile's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year. U.S. Note 12(c) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99 provides preferential tariff treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile entered under subheading 9911.17.10 through 9911.17.85 in an amount equal to the amount by which Chile's trade surplus exceeds the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year. During calendar year
(CY)2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Chile's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 260,423 metric tons according to data published by its customs authority, the *Servicio Nacional de Aduana* . Based on this data, USTR determines that Chile's trade surplus is negative. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 12(b) and U.S. Note 12(c) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99, goods of Chile are not eligible to enter the United States duty-free under subheading 9911.17.05 or at preferential tariff rates under subheading 9911.17.10 through 9911.17.85 in CY2008. *Morocco:* Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. Law 108-302; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 7971 of December 22, 2005 (70 FR 76651) implemented the Morocco FTA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTS to reflect the tariff and rules of origin treatment provided for in the Morocco FTA. U.S. Note 12(a) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the **Federal Register** a determination of the amount of Morocco's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except that Morocco's imports of U.S. goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the Morocco FTA are not included in the calculation of Morocco's trade surplus. U.S. Note 12(b) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Morocco entered under subheading 9912.17.05 in an amount equal to the lesser of Morocco's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year. U.S. Note 12(c) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99 provides preferential tariff treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Morocco entered under subheading 9912.17.10 through 9912.17.85 in an amount equal to the amount by which Morocco's trade surplus exceeds the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year. During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Morocco's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 658,890 metric tons according to data published by its customs authority, the *Office des Changes* . Based on this data, USTR determines that Morocco's trade surplus is negative. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 12(b) and U.S. Note 12(c) to subchapter XII of HTS chapter 99, goods of Morocco are not eligible to enter the United States duty-free under subheading 9912.17.05 or at preferential tariff rates under subheading 9912.17.10 through 9912.17.85 in CY2008. *CAFTA-DR:* Pursuant to section 201 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 109-53; 19 U.S.C. 4031), Presidential Proclamation No. 7987 of February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10827), Presidential Proclamation No. 7991 of March 24, 2006 (71 FR 16009), Presidential Proclamation No. 7996 of March 31, 2006 (71 FR 16971), Presidential Proclamation No. 8034 of June 30, 2006 (71 FR 38509), and Presidential Proclamation No. 8111 of February 28, 2007 (72 FR 10025) implemented the CAFTA-DR on behalf of the United States and modified the HTS to reflect the tariff and rules of origin treatment provided for in the CAFTA-DR. U.S. Note 25(b)(i) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides that USTR is required to publish annually in the **Federal Register** a determination of the amount of each CAFTA-DR country's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except that each CAFTA-DR country's exports to the United States of goods classified under HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.91, and 1701.99 and its imports of U.S. goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the CAFTA-DR are not included in the calculation of that country's trade surplus. U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of each CAFTA-DR country entered under subheading 9822.05.20 in an amount equal to the lesser of that country's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that country and that calendar year. During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, the Dominican Republic's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 102,649 metric tons according to data published by the *Instituto Azucarero Dominicano* . Based on this data, USTR determines that the Dominican Republic's trade surplus is negative. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, goods of the Dominican Republic are not eligible to enter the United States duty-free under subheading 9822.05.20 in CY2008). During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, El Salvador's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 224,867 metric tons according to data published by the Salvadoran Central Bank. Based on this data, USTR determines that El Salvador's trade surplus is 224,867 metric tons. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, the aggregate quantity of goods of El Salvador that may be entered duty-free under subheading 9822.05.20 in CY2008 is 24,960 metric tons (i.e., the amount set out in that note for El Salvador for 2008). During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Guatemala's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 1,023,416 metric tons according to data published by the World Trade Atlas. Based on this data, USTR determines that Guatemala's trade surplus is 1,023,416 metric tons. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, the aggregate quantity of goods of Guatemala that may be entered duty-free under subheading 9822.05.20 in CY2008 is 33,280 metric tons (i.e., the amount set out in that note for Guatemala for 2008). During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Honduras' exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 31,449 metric tons according to data published by the Central Bank of Honduras. Based on this data, USTR determines that Honduras' trade surplus is 31,449 metric tons. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, the aggregate quantity of goods of Honduras that may be entered duty-free under subheading 9822.05.20 in CY2008 is 8,320 metric tons (i.e., the amount set out in that note for Honduras for 2008). During CY2006, the most recent year for which data is available, Nicaragua's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 58,575 metric tons according to data published by the World Trade Atlas. Based on this data, USTR determines that Nicaragua's trade surplus is 58,575 metric tons. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTS chapter 98, the aggregate quantity of goods of Nicaragua that may be entered duty-free under subheading 9822.05.20 in CY2008 is 22,880 metric tons (i.e., the amount set out in that note for Nicaragua for 2008). James Murphy, Assistant United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E7-24735 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W8-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of Revised Information Collection: RI 38-31 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 38-31, Request for Information About Your Missing Payment, is sent in response to a notification by an individual of the loss or non-receipt of a payment from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. This form requests the information needed to enable OPM to trace and/or reissue payment. Missing payments may also be reported to OPM. Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Approximately 8,000 reports of missing payments are processed each year. Of these, we estimate that 7,800 are reports of missing checks. Approximately 200 reports of missing checks are reported using RI 38-31 and 7,600 are reported by telephone. A response time of ten minutes per form reporting a missing check is estimated; the same amount of time is needed to report the missing checks or electronic funds transfer
(EFT)payments using the telephone. The annual burden for reporting missing checks is 1,300 hours. The remaining 200 reports relate to EFT payments. No missing EFT payments are reported using RI 38-31. The annual burden for reporting missing EFT payments is 33 hours. The total burden is 1,333 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, FAX
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. Office of Personnel Management. Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-24705 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: OPM Form 1496A AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for revision of a currently approved collection. OPM Form1496A, Application for Deferred Retirement (Separations on or after October 1, 1956) is used by eligible former Federal employees to apply for a deferred Civil Service annuity. Form OPM 1496 and OPM 1496A were needed for many years because there was a major revision in the law effective October 1, 1956; this affected the general information provided with both forms. However, we will no longer maintain a clearance of the OPM 1496, because the waning population affected by this form is fewer than ten respondents a year. We are requesting clearance of the revised OPM 1496A. Approximately 2,800 OPM Forms 1496A will be completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 1 hour to complete this form. The annual burden is 2,800 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, FAX
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to— Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500; and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-24708 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: RI 92-19 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 92-19, Application for Deferred or Postponed Retirement: Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), is used by separated employees to apply for either a deferred or a postponed FERS annuity benefit. Approximately 1, 693 forms are completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The annual estimated burden is 1,693 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on
(202)606-8358, FAX
(202)418-3251 or via E-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov* . Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to— Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3540; and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,
(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-24712 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. PI2008-1; Order Nos. 48 and 49] Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document informs the public that the Commission is seeking comments on proposed service standard measurement and reporting systems for market dominant products. The proposal responds to provisions in a law enacted this year which require consultation between the Commission and the Postal Service on the establishment of service standards. The law also requires the use of an objective external measurement, unless the Commission approves an internal measurement system. Comments will assist the Commission in carrying out its legal obligations. This document identifies revised comment deadlines and reflects minor changes, reformatting, and footnote numbering. DATES: Initial comments due January 18, 2008; reply comments due February 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulatory History* , 72 FR 34424 (June 22, 2007). I. Background Section 301 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3218, requires the Postal Service, in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission), to establish by regulation a set of modern service standards for market dominant products by December 20, 2007. 1 By statute, the service standards must be measured by an objective external performance measurement system, unless the Commission approves the use of an internal measurement system. 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2). 1 Section 301 of the PAEA is codified at 39 U.S.C. 3691. The Postal Service published its proposed service standards October 17, 2007. *See* 72 FR 58946. The Commission and Postal Service have held a series of meetings to discuss service performance measurement issues. 2 In response to those meetings, the Postal Service has submitted a formal proposal to the Commission setting forth several proposed systems for measuring the service performance of market dominant products. 3 The Proposal describes the measurement approaches the Postal Service seeks to use to measure the service performance of its various market dominant mail products. These approaches include, for example, the External First-Class
(EXFC)measurement system to measure single-piece First-Class Mail, Delivery Confirmation for parcel-shaped mail, and a hybrid system for presort letters and flats that relies on Intelligent Mail Barcode
(IMB)scans and independent, third-party reporters. In addition, the Proposal sets forth by product (or class of mail) the manner in which and the frequency with which the Postal Service proposes to report the service performance data. Lastly, because not all the proposed service performance measurement systems are fully operational, the Postal Service provides an adoption timeline and interim measurement solutions pending development and adoption of longer term measures. 2 During the course of developing service standards, the Postal Service has also discussed service performance measurement systems with workgroups of the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee. 3 *See* USPS Service Performance Measurement Proposal, received November 29, 2007 (Proposal), which is reproduced below. The Proposal is also available on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov* . Measurements from existing systems, *e.g.* , EXFC and Delivery Confirmation, will be utilized to report service performance in FY 2008. 4 Beginning in January 2009, when the use of IMBs will be a prerequisite for certain rate discounts, the Postal Service anticipates being able to report service performance data for all products, except for Within County Periodicals. 4 In FY 2008, pilot programs involving IMBs may yield performance measurements as well. The Postal Service seeks approval to move forward with the development of the proposed measurement systems “with the understanding that the approval is for the conceptual approach [discussed in the Proposal] and is subject to review of the implemented systems.” *Id.* at 7. More specifically, it requests that the Commission: 1. Approve the EXFC measurement system for service performance measurement of First-Class Mail single-piece letters and flats, and as a proxy for First-Class Mail presort flats. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 8, 17, and 22; 5 5 To measure First-Class presort flats, the Postal Service proposes to use EXFC data for machine-addressed flats only. *Id.* at 22. 2. Approve Delivery Confirmation service for service performance measurement of parcel-shaped market dominant mail. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 22-23, 39, 52, and 53; 3. Approve a hybrid measurement system based on IMB scans and independent, third-party stop-the-clock scans for service performance measurement of presort letters and flats, *i.e.* , First-Class presort letters, Standard Mail letters and flats, and Periodicals letters and flats. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 9, 20, 33, 35-36, and 43-44; 6 6 Presort Package Services flats will be measured using the same approach as Presort Standard flats and be reported on a consolidated basis. *Id.* at 6, n.8, and 35. The Postal Service proposes not to measure single-piece Package Services flats due to the relatively small quantities of such mail. *Id.* at 6, n.9. 4. Approve the use of Red Tag and DelTrak as interim service performance measurements for Periodicals until adoption of IMBs is sufficient to permit use of a hybrid internal and external measurement system. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 43-44; 5. Approve the International Mail Measurement System
(IMMS)for service performance measurement of First-Class Mail International letters, EXFC measurement of domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International flats, and the measurement of single-piece First-Class Mail parcels as a proxy for First-Class Mail International parcels. *Id.* at 6-7; *see also id.* at 27-30; 6. Approve the use of internal data for service performance measurement of certain Special Services. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 56-59; and 7. Approve the various service performance measurement reporting proposals specified in the Proposal. *Id.* at 7; *see also id.* at 25, 30, 40, 46, 54, and 60. The Commission's role under section 3691 of title 39 is to consult with the Postal Service concerning the establishment of service standards for market dominant products. The service standards are required to be measured by an objective external performance measurement system, unless the Commission approves the use of an internal measurement system. Section 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2). Given its obligations under the PAEA and the Postal Service's Proposal, which characterizes the various measurement approaches as either external or internal, the Commission is initiating this docket to solicit public comment on the Postal Service's proposed service performance measurement systems. Interested persons are invited to comment on any or all aspects of the proposed service performance measurement and reporting systems. Comments are due January 18, 2008. 7 Reply comments may be filed no later than February 1, 2008. 8 The Commission intends to evaluate the comments received and use those suggestions to help carry out its performance measurement responsibilities under the PAEA. All comments will be available for review on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov* . 7 Changed from January 7, 2008 (per Order No. 48) by Order No. 49. 8 Changed from January 18, 2008 (per Order No. 48) by Order No. 49. [II.] United States Postal Service Service Performance Measurement [A.] Notices CONFIRM®, Express Mail®, First-Class Mail®, Intelligent Mail®, Planet Code®, *PostalOne!* ®, Priority Mail®, Standard Mail®, usps.com®, U.S. Postal Service®, ZIP+4®, Certified Mail TM , Delivery Confirmation TM , Onecode ACS TM , Post Office TM , Postal Service TM , P.O. Box TM , Signature Confirmation TM , and ZIP Code TM are among the many trademarks owned by the United States Postal Service®. 9 9 © 2007 United States Postal Service. All rights reserved. [B.] Glossary of Terms The description of the proposed approach for service performance measurement includes references to certain postal terminology. For clarification, the following brief definitions and descriptions are provided. A *service standard* is defined as “a stated goal for service achievement for each mail class.” *See* Publication 32, Glossary of Postal Terms (May 1997, updated with Postal Bulletin revisions through July 5, 2007). The service standard for each market-dominant mail service incorporates the days-to-deliver for each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within the Postal Service network. The standards serve as the benchmark for measuring service performance. The *critical entry time*
(CET)is the latest time mail can be received at designated induction points in the postal network in order for it to be processed and dispatched in time to meet service standards. The *start-the-clock* is the date/time when the mail piece enters the mailstream. If the Postal Service accepts a mail piece before the posted CET for that day, the day of entry is designated as the “start-the-clock” date. If the mail piece is accepted after the CET or dropped at a collection box, business mail chute, or Post Office location after the last posted pickup time or on a day when pickup does not occur, the mail piece will have a “start-the-clock” date of the following applicable processing day. The *stop-the-clock* is the date/time when delivery occurs or is initially attempted. The *service performance* is the number of calendar days from the “start-the-clock” to the “stop-the-clock.” However, if the day of receipt occurs after a non-delivery day (Sunday or a holiday), then one day is subtracted for each non-delivery day. The *Annual Compliance Report* is the national service performance report for market-dominant mail service that is subject to compliance review on a fiscal year basis. [C. Description of Proposal] 1. Introduction Among many requirements, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
(PAEA)instructs the United States Postal Service (Postal Service) to establish modern service standards for its market-dominant mail products by December 20, 2007. These standards should be designed with the intent of providing a system of objective external performance measurement. However, the law allows for the implementation of an internal measurement system instead of an external one, with the approval of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). 10 10 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and 3691(b)(2). *http://www.prc.gov/notices/PL109-435PAEA.pdf* . The proposed service performance measurement system is designed to provide the Postal Service and its customers with data sufficiently accurate and reliable for purposes of assessing the quality of mail service in a cost effective manner. The measurement system is also intended to provide the PRC with the ability to perform its responsibilities under the PAEA with a high degree of confidence. The following table summarizes the proposed measurement system. Each “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” event is described in detail in later sections. Table 1.—Measurement Approach at Full Rollout 1 Single-piece Letters Flats Parcels Presort Letters Flats Parcels First-Class Mail EXFC EXFC Start: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit Stop: External reporting EXFC as Proxy 2 Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit. Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. Single-Piece First-Class Mail International IMMS 3 EXFC as proxy 4 Single-Piece First-Class Mail parcels as proxy 5 N/A N/A N/A. Periodicals 6 N/A N/A N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit Stop: External reporting Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit Stop: External reporting. N/A. Standard Mail N/A N/A N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit Stop: External reporting Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit Stop: External reporting 7 Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit. Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. Package Services N/A N/A 8 Start: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Unit. Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. 1 Special Services are not included in Table 1 as they have different methods to “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” from the market-dominant mail classes. The approach for measuring Special Services is explained in detail later in this document. 2 The Postal Service will use the External First-Class Mail Measurement System
(EXFC)measurement for single-piece flats as a proxy for Presort First-Class Mail flats due to small volumes. The external measurement contractor will create test mail pieces with characteristics of Presort mail and seed them into the mailstream via retail. 3 The International Mail Measurement System
(IMMS)is an external measurement system for which an independent measurement contractor seeds mail into the mailstream with a wide range of mail characteristics representing international mail. 4 The EXFC measurement for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats will serve as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International flats due to the small volume in this category. After clearing customs, single-piece First-Class Mail International flats enter the domestic mailstream and are handled with domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats. 5 The Postal Service will use the measurement for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail parcels as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International inbound surface parcels due to the small volume in this category. After clearing customs, single-piece First-Class Mail International inbound surface parcels enter the domestic mailstream and are handled the same way as domestic single-piece First-Class Mail parcels. 6 Two external systems, Red Tag and Time Inc.'s DelTrak, will be used for measurement during FY 2009, as the Postal Service transitions to a statistically viable long-term solution. 7 Presort Package Services flats consist primarily of Bound Printed Matter, which has similar physical characteristics as Presort and can be scanned by external reporters. Accordingly, Presort Package Services flats will be measured via the same approach as Presort Standard Mail flats and reported together. 8 Single-piece Package Services flats make up less than 4% of all Package Services flats (excluding retail Media Mail, which was discontinued as a result of PRC Docket No. R2006-1) and only 1% of the total Package Services mail base; therefore, the Postal Service does not propose a single-piece Package Services flats measure. As a result, the Package Services measurement will be strictly parcel volume. The Postal Service believes that the proposed measurement and reporting systems described in greater detail below satisfy all legislative requirements and provide the PRC with sufficiently reliable data with which to perform its service performance accountability responsibilities. The proposed system is cost effective, statistically significant, sufficiently granular in detail, and includes numerous methods of auditability. The Postal Service is asking for approval to move forward with development of these systems with the understanding that the approval is for the conceptual approach documented here and is subject to review of the implemented systems. In order to begin reporting service performance metrics as quickly as possible, the Postal Service requests that the PRC do the following: Approve continued use of EXFC for service performance measurement of First-Class Mail single-piece letters and flats, and as a proxy for First-Class Mail Presort flats; Approve continued use of Delivery Confirmation service for service performance measurement of parcel-shaped components of each domestic market-dominant mail class; Approve the use of an external measurement system that supplements externally collected delivery data with Intelligent Mail scans for service performance measurement of Presort letters and flats; Approve the use of data from external measurement systems—Red Tag and DelTrak—as an interim service performance measurement for Periodicals until adoption of IMBs is sufficient to permit migration to the external measurement provider; Approve continued use of IMMS for service performance measurement of single-piece First-Class Mail International letters, and the use of domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flat performance as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International flats; Approve the use of internal data for service performance measurement of Special Services; and Approve the reporting proposals specified. 2. Measurement Approach The Postal Service proposes continued use of EXFC to measure single-piece First-Class Mail letters and flats and IMMS to measure single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. 11 For letter- and flat-shaped Presort mail within First-Class Mail, Periodicals, and Standard Mail services, the Postal Service has designed an external measurement approach that supplements mail scans available from an internal Intelligent Mail system with externally collected data. For parcel-shaped mail within First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Package Services, 12 the Postal Service proposes to use an internal solution based on Delivery Confirmation scans obtained at acceptance and delivery. Additionally, the proposed performance measurement of various domestic special services will use an internal measurement approach. 11 The only major type of International Mail classified as market-dominant is single-piece First-Class Mail International. For single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and parcels, the Postal Service will use the domestic flats and parcel measurements as proxies, as explained in Section 4. 12 Package Services market-dominant products include single-piece Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, and Media Mail. For purposes of service standard establishment and service performance measurement, the market-dominant products designated by 39 U.S.C. 3621(a) as single-piece Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, and Media Mail are grouped together as Package Services due to the small volumes. The two critical elements for service performance measurement of a mail piece are the date/time when the mail piece enters the mailstream, otherwise known as the “start-the-clock,” and the date/time when delivery occurs or is attempted, otherwise known as the “stop-the-clock.” The mail piece service performance can be viewed as the difference between the “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” dates compared to the established service standard for the mail category. When assessing mail piece performance, the facility Critical Entry Time
(CET)must be taken into account. The CET is the latest time mail can be received at designated induction points in the postal network in order for it to be processed and dispatched in time to meet service standards. If the Postal Service accepts a mail piece before the CET on a given processing day, the mail piece will have a “start-the-clock” date of the current day. If the mail piece is accepted after the CET, the mail piece will have a “start-the-clock” date of the following applicable processing day. 2.1 Presort Letter and Flat-Shaped Mail For Presort Standard Mail, First-Class Mail and Periodical letters and Standard and Periodical flats, the Postal Service proposes a service performance measurement system that uses the induction event to “start-the-clock,” and an external, third-party “stop-the-clock” performed by reporters with scanners in their home. Additional data on mail piece tracking from Intelligent Mail Barcode
(IMB)scans will also be used to supplement the external data. However, any data collected by the Postal Service will be provided to an independent, external contractor to calculate service measurement and compile the necessary reports. To facilitate an accurate “start-the-clock,” mailers will prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information that describes the mail profile. During mail induction, the Postal Service will scan barcodes to record mail arrival at sites that are equipped with scanners. At other sites, the “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. In all cases, mailings are verified to ensure they meet acceptable mail preparation requirements to qualify for service performance measurement. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers to ensure validity. The proposed measurement system will determine the service performance by using data collected by the Postal Service on the time taken from the “start-the-clock” through processing. The external measurement contractor will combine this data with data from anonymous households and small businesses that report directly to an external service measurement contractor. The reporters in anonymous households will submit in-home delivery information to the external measurement contractor, and that information will be used to determine the “stop-the-clock” service day. The end-to-end service measure will have two parts,
(1)how long mail pieces take to get through processing, and
(2)how long mail takes from the last processing scan to arrive in-home—the second portion will be used as a delivery factor differential to determine the percent of mail not delivered on time even though it made through processing timely. For Presort letters and flats entered at Delivery Units that do not receive processing scans, postal delivery personnel will scan IMBs to indicate intention to deliver same-day. The delivery factor differential for the performance measurement between the date of the last IMB scan and the date reported in-home will be determined for each mail category. This factor represents last mile delivery performance. With this measurement approach, the core of the service performance score would be based on data provided by external reporters, which would make it easily auditable, and yet cost effective. Using external reporters, barcoded mail that falls out of automation, such as non-machinable and not flat- machinable
(NFM)mail, will be included in service performance measurement. To ensure that the external service measurement contractor is able to measure service performance for properly prepared and addressed mail pieces, the Postal Service will provide the contractor with mail quality information that it derives by scanning IMBs. The proposed approach leverages data from internal systems to enhance measurement for Presort letters and flat-shaped mail has several key advantages: greater representation of mail characteristics; allows for richer diagnostics; and provides opportunities to reduce the cost of measurement. 2.2 Requirements for Presort Mailers Since the Postal Service measurement system for letter and flat-shaped mail is dependent on the IMB, the Postal Service will require the use of IMBs to qualify for automation discounts as of January 2009. It is important to note that the IMB alone does not provide enough information for service performance measurement. The mailer adoption rates projected throughout this document include both adoption of the IMB as well as the adoption of electronic mailing information. For service performance measurement purposes, mailers will need to: Prepare mailings using the Intelligent Mail series of barcodes to provide a sufficient level of uniqueness and abide by mail preparation requirements to ensure that the mailings are automation-compatible; 13 and Submit electronic mailing information describing the mail contents and Intelligent Mail barcodes used. 13 Domestic Mail Manual sections 200.3.1 through 200.3.14. Physical Standard Mails for Automation Letters and Cards. Domestic Mail Manual sections 300.3.1 through 300.3.14. Service performance measurement will depend on high-quality mail presented to the Postal Service. The Postal Service requires that mail meet the required mail preparation criteria. The quality of the mail will be verified by either Seamless Acceptance, semi-automated verification such as MERLIN, or manual verification processes. Under the Seamless Acceptance verification process, certain characteristics of mail will be inspected while mail is processed in the mailstream. Because incorrectly addressed pieces and improperly prepared mail make it impossible in many cases to meet the service standard, only mailings that meet acceptable mail preparation criteria will be included for service measurement. 2.3 Parcels For parcel-shaped mail within First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Package Services, the Postal Service will use an internal solution based on Delivery Confirmation scans obtained at acceptance and delivery. The Postal Service currently measures service performance for Retail parcels via Delivery Confirmation barcode scans. The existing Delivery Confirmation performance reports for mail originating at postal retail units can be used in the short-term to measure the service performance of all Package Services until service measurement can be extended to Presort parcels. For reporting purposes, First-Class Mail parcels will be included with the First-Class Mail aggregated performance results, Standard Mail parcels will be included with the Standard Mail aggregated performance results, and the Package Services aggregated performance results will include only parcel volume. Parcel-shaped Retail mail will use the Delivery Confirmation scan at the retail counter as the “start-the-clock.” Parcel-shaped Presort mail will use the documented arrival time at the postal unit as the “start-the-clock.” For Presort parcels, validation similar to that for letters and flats will be performed to ensure that the proper parcels were dropped at the correct postal facility. The “stop-the-clock” is the Delivery Confirmation scan performed by postal delivery personnel at delivery. 14 Since postal personnel scan virtually every piece with a Delivery Confirmation scan at delivery, the measurement system is truly an end-to-end performance system. In addition, the sender has access to the Delivery Confirmation “stop-the-clock” information from usps.com and, thus, can independently verify the delivery date. 14 Carriers en-route and clerks at post office boxes. More detail on parcels can be found under the specific class descriptions below. 2.4 Reporting The Postal Service will use an independent, external contractor to prepare service performance reports for domestic First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. For the letter- and flat-shaped components of its market-dominant mail classes, the Postal Service's external contractor will employ reporters equipped with handheld scanners who, each day, will scan the IMB on live mail pieces received at their delivery addresses. The reporters will transmit scan data back to the external contractor and the scans will be used as the “stop-the-clock” for the mail pieces. Since there is considerable set-up associated with this type of system, the Postal Service will begin reporting from this system in FY 2009. External “stop-the-clock” scanning offers many benefits to the Postal Service, the PRC, and mailers concerning the accuracy and auditability of service performance measurement: Last-mile sampling data will be used to provide the granularity required for the district level reporting; Association of the reporter scan data to the final Mail Processing Equipment scan will be used to assess and correct any last mile failures; Mail pieces used will have no distinguishing features; and The volume of mail going to a reporter will remain unchanged. The Postal Service plans to continue collecting performance data for parcels within each domestic market-dominant mail class as it does today based on Delivery Confirmation acceptance and delivery scans. The Postal Service will send performance data for First-Class Mail parcels and Standard Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting into each mail class' reporting measurement. Service Performance for Package Services parcels and Special Services will be reported by the Postal Service. Quarterly reports will include data on the percentage of mail delivered on time as well as the percentage of mail delivered within 1-day, 2-days, and 3-days of the standard being measured. Annual compliance reports will include the annual goal and the annual percentage of mail for each class delivered on time or the percentage of special services provided on time by service. 2.5 Timeline The Postal Service will use a phased rollout of the service performance measurement system, which will correspond with Presort-mailer adoption of the IMBs and other needed electronic mailing information. A significant adoption of IMBs by presort mailers is expected by FY 2009. This will provide sufficient representative volume to provide statistically valid judgment. 15 15 Excludes Periodicals Mail, which will cutover in 2009. Some components of the proposed measurement system are already in place. The Postal Service will continue to use EXFC to measure single-piece First-Class Mail letters and flats, as well as IMMS to measure single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. EXFC and IMMS are specifically designed to be representative of those mailstreams and already provide an external, statistically valid performance measurement. Measurement is also becoming available for Package Services parcels entered at retail. 16 The existing Delivery Confirmation performance reports for mail originating at postal retail units can be used in the short-term to measure the service performance of all Package Services until service measurement can be extended to Presort parcels. 16 Under Order No. 43, the PRC has classified all inbound single-piece surface parcels tendered at Universal Postal Union inward land rates in the market-dominant category. This mail includes surface parcels, which enter the United States via surface transportation at the New Jersey International Bulk Mail Center, as well as surface airlift parcels, which enter at the five International Service Centers in Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York JFK, and San Francisco. Once surface parcels clear customs, they are transferred from the acceptance facility to a Bulk Mail Center (BMC). Once entered into the BMC network, inbound parcels undergo the same processing as domestic single-piece Package Services parcels. Because the volume of the inbound surface parcels is small in proportion to other market-dominant categories, creating a separate measurement system for these parcels is not cost-justified. Given that inbound surface parcels are handled through the domestic BMC network, the Postal Service submits that the service performance measurement statistics for corresponding domestic surface parcels serves as a reasonable proxy for International Mail inbound surface parcels. Although use of the IMB will not be required until January 2009, several Presort mailers have already adopted the IMB and submit electronic mailing information. Pilot programs are currently underway for measurement of Presort First-Class Mail and Standard Mail. Mailer adoption rates are expected to continue growing. Toward the end of 2008, external reporters will be trained to use a new scanning device for in-home delivery reporting of all mail received that contains an IMB. Beginning in 2009, IMB and electronic mailing information adoption will occur in sufficient quantity that measurement based on scans generated by external reporters will provide statistically valid measurements for service performance of Presort First-Class Mail letters and Standard Mail. For Periodicals mailers, adoption of IMBs and electronic mailing information is projected to be slower. Measurements from DelTrak and Red Tag, which are two external measurement systems, will be used for measurement during a portion of FY 2009 as the Postal Service transitions to a statistically viable long-term solution using the same methodology explained above. Table 2.—Measurement Implementation Timeline January 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters and Flats EXFC EXFC EXFC. First-Class Mail Presort Flats and Single-Piece International Mail Flats EXFC as Proxy EXFC as Proxy EXFC as Proxy. Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters IMMS IMMS IMMS. First-Class Mail Presort Letters Intelligent Mail Pilot Reporter + IMB/Electronic Mailing Information (25-50% of system) Reporter + IMB/Electronic Mailing Information (50-75% of system). First-Class Mail Parcels 1 and International Mail Parcels System Setup and Development Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Sample (5-10% system) Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Sample (5-10% system). Standard Mail Letters and Flats 2 Intelligent Mail Pilot Reporter + IMB/Electronic Mailing Information (25-50% of system) Reporter + IMB/Electronic Mailing Information (50-75% of system). Standard Mail Parcels 3 System Setup and Development Delivery Confirmation Sample (5-10% of system) Delivery Confirmation Sample (10-25% of system). Periodicals Letters and Flats Red Tag/DelTrak System Review Red Tag/DelTrak Reporter + IMB 4 Reporter + IMB/Electronic mailing information 5 (25-75% of system). Periodicals: Within County 6 Red Tag Package Services Parcels *(includes Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, Media Mail and Parcel Post)* Retail Only (15% Retail) Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Sample (5-10% system) Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Sample (10-25% system). Special Services System Setup and Development Internal Measurement Internal Measurement. 1 First-Class Mail parcels will be rolled into the First-Class Mail measurement based on percent of mail. 2 Presort Package Services flats are included with Standard Mail flats. 3 Standard Mail parcels will be rolled into the Standard Mail measurement based on percent of mail. 4 Once a threshold is met for IMB statistical validity, which the Postal Service expects to occur in 2009, the Postal Service plans to cutover to reporting via IMB scanning. Red Tag and DelTrak will be used for reporting in 2009 until the cutover occurs; however, the long-term measurement approach for Periodicals is planned for 2010, subject to the considerations expressed above in fn. 16. 5 The Postal Service may elect to have its external provider use data from DelTrak or Red Tag even in future years if it proves to increase the overall robustness of the data and the statistical validity. 6 The Postal Service is still attempting to determine how an accurate measurement system for In-County Periodicals could be developed. In the interim, the Postal Service is hopeful that existing systems like Red Tag could be expanded to provide data in the short-term and that mailer adoption of IMBs will provide additional granularity in the long-term. 3. First-Class Mail 3.1 Background First-Class Mail pieces represented 46.0% of the overall mail volume in FY 2006, 17 with nearly 98 billion pieces. Of First-Class Mail, 42.5% are single-piece letters or flats, 0.36% are single-piece parcels, 55.9% are Presort letters, 1.0% are Presort flats, and 0.194% are Presort parcels. The Postal Service plans to measure each of these different segments and report a weighted average measurement. Below Table 3—First-Class Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of First-Class Mail by entry volume and shape. The table also illustrates the percentage that the First-Class Mail segments represent within the overall mailstream. 17 *http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Fy2006_RPWsummaryreport.pdf* . Table 3.—First-Class Mail Volume Single-piece Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Parcels (percent) Presort Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Parcels (percent) Total (percent) First-Class Mail 39.06 3.49 0.36 55.9 1.0 0.19 100 Overall Mailstream 18.0 1.6 0.17 25.7 0.47 0.09 46.0 3.2 First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters and Flats Collection boxes and office building chutes are the primary methods for entering First-Class Mail single-piece letters and flats. Combined, this mail represents 19.6% of the total mailstream. Service performance is currently measured though EXFC and, subject to PRC approval, the Postal Service plans to continue to use EXFC for this purpose. EXFC currently has approximately 13,000 reporters and measures 2.7 million mail pieces each year. EXFC continuously measures 463 3-digit ZIP Code service areas selected based on geography and volume density. Approximately 90% of First-Class Mail volume originates and 80% destinates in these EXFC measurement areas. EXFC mail pieces are designed to resemble the rest of the mailstream; pieces are hand- or machine-addressed, stamped or metered, and are of different colors, sizes, and weights. The Postal Service intends to expand the use of EXFC in FY 2009 to cover nearly all 3-digit ZIP Code areas. 3.2.1 Statistical Validity Each EXFC postal administrative reporting district currently receives approximately 5,000 EXFC mail pieces with an overnight service standard, 1,500 pieces with a two-day standard, and 1,500 pieces with a three-day standard each quarter. The original EXFC system used a precision level of +/-3% to produce statistically valid results at the postal administrative district level over an entire postal quarter. To reach this level of statistical validity, a certain number of pieces must be mailed during a given test period. Over the years, the Postal Service has increased the original sample size, which has driven the precision level to a much narrower variance and enhanced the system's accuracy. Precision levels at the district level for the annual results are now typically under +/-1% for each service standard. To ensure the integrity of the measurement, the Postal Service does not know where EXFC mail is being dropped or received. At the national level, the current system has a precision level of +/-0.05% across all three days in the current First-Class Mail service standard range (overnight, two-day, three-day) over an entire fiscal year. The EXFC system has been in place since 1990 and provides accurate, independent, and externally generated service performance results. Quality reviews are conducted for droppers and reporters, and data are reviewed on a daily, weekly, cross-weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. 3.2.2 “Start-the-Clock” The date/time that the mail piece is dropped into the collection box, business mail chute, or at a Post Office location is the “start-the-clock.” Mail piece droppers report the “start-the-clock” directly to the external service measurement contractor. If a mail piece is dropped at a collection box, business mail chute, or Post Office location after the last posted pickup time or on a day when pickup does not occur, the next pickup day will be used as the “start-the-clock.” The induction points for the “start-the-clock” are determined before the start of each quarter. Droppers are provided with a listing of collection boxes that they are allowed to use for their assigned inductions in a given 3-digit ZIP Code service area. Enough locations are chosen to ensure a certain amount of overage, to accommodate any unforeseen issues that may arise with the selected induction points. The collection boxes are chosen in a random selection process with replacement, meaning that the same induction location may be chosen multiple times. The induction points are weighted going into the selection process, so that locations in 5-digit ZIP Code areas with a larger number of collection boxes have a greater chance of being selected than locations in ZIP Codes areas with a smaller number of collection boxes. The external contractor monitors drop compliance continuously throughout the quarter to ensure proper diversification of mail locations. EXFC origin-destination mail flows are based on estimated 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair volume flows for corresponding 3-digit ZIP Code pairs over the past three fiscal years. The number of pieces entered from each district is proportionate to the origin-destination volumes by service standard. The measurement system will be expanded to nearly all 3-digit ZIP Codes in FY 2009. 3.2.3 “Stop-the-Clock” The date/time that the mail piece is received at a household, small business, or Post Office Box is reported as the “stop-the-clock” directly by the reporter to the external contractor for EXFC reporting purposes. The service performance is the number of calendar days from the “start-the-clock” to the “stop-the-clock.” However, if the day of receipt occurs after a non-delivery day (Sunday or a holiday), then one day is subtracted for each non-delivery day. 3.3 First-Class Mail Presort Letters The primary induction method for Presort letters is bulk entry at postal mail processing plants and Business Mail Entry Units (BMEUs) across the United States. Presort First-Class Mail letters represent 25.7% of the total mailstream. The measurement approach proposed by the Postal Service uses externally generated scans of mail pieces containing IMBs by reporters to record in-home delivery dates. In combination with Intelligent Mail scan data collected by the Postal Service, this approach enables the granular level of reporting being sought by the mailing industry. 3.3.1 Adoption Rates Participation in the Intelligent Mail pilot, the benefits of the IMB for special services, and the expectation that the Postal Service will require IMBs on mail subject to automation discounts are factors that, in combination, are expected to generate 13.6 billion Presort letters with IMBs and the other needed electronic mail information by January 2009. This volume will satisfy the conditions for performance measurement in FY 2009. With required use by January 2009, the minimum estimates for mailer adoption are: January 2009: 25% of First-Class Mail Presort letters; and January 2010: 50% of First-Class Mail Presort letters. 3.3.2 Statistical Validity We plan to use the last mile estimate based on combined data from presorted First-Class letters with IMBs and the EXFC pieces with IMBs. Assuming that 25% of presorted First-Class mail will have an IMB and be measurable, the average district will have approximately 6,775 pieces per quarter upon which to base the last mile estimates when presorted First-Class mail is combined with available data from EXFC. The last mile factor estimate with a 95% confidence interval would be +/-0.5% at the district level on average. Current EXFC data indicates that district last mile factors vary over time and geography, but generally fall in the 2-3% range. The Postal Service anticipates a precision between +/-0.5% and +/-0.6% as illustrated in the table below. Table 4.—Precision for First-Class Mail Presort Letters Confidence interval (percent) Last mile factor estimate (percent) Coverage of IMB + electronic mailing information (percent) Precision (percent) First-Class Mail Presort Letters 95 2 25 +/-0.5 Presort Letters 95 3 25 +/-0.6 It should also be noted that the last mile factor is one piece of the overall service performance estimate, with the performance of the acceptance to final processing scan being the other. The availability of billions of data records to sample from to form these estimates means that the Postal Service can economically take large samples for individual report cells ( *e.g.* Baltimore SCF-entry Standard Mail, Chicago 3-day First-Class Presorted Mail). The estimated precision levels will be shared with the PRC during the development process. 3.3.3 “Start-the-Clock” Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information listing the IMBs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. The “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 3.3.4 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters will be equipped with handheld scanners capable of scanning IMBs and reporters will scan all mail they receive that contains an IMB. These scan data will be transmitted to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individually scanned mail pieces. By comparing the date of the final Postal Service scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external measurement contractor will calculate a factor for the actual service performance of the last mile for First-Class Mail Presort letters. This factor will be combined with the Intelligent Mail data to report the end-to-end service performance measurement. The use of external reporters will allow for measurement of manually processed mail and mail that falls out of automation to be included in service performance measurement. The external reporters will provide the actual “stop-the-clock” and the external provider will calculate the service performance for those pieces. 3.4 First-Class Mail Presort Flats Presort First-Class Mail flats represent only 0.47% of the total mailstream, producing one of the smallest mail categories. This low volume makes creating a statistically valid measurement system difficult. Since there are four times as many single-piece First-Class Mail flats as there are Presort flats, and the single-piece and Presort flats mailstreams are combined in operations, the Postal Service will use the EXFC measurement of single-piece First-Class Mail flats as a proxy for Presort flats. In order to determine a more accurate estimate for First-Class Mail Presort flats, the portion of EXFC that reflects this mail category, *i.e.* , machine-addressed flats, rather than hand-addressed, will be used. 3.5 First-Class Mail Retail Parcels The Postal Service currently measures service performance for retail parcels via Delivery Confirmation barcode scans. This approach for measuring performance is working well, so the Postal Service will continue using this measurement approach for this mail shape. For reporting purposes, performance results will be sent to the external measurement contractor for inclusion into the First-Class Mail aggregated performance results. First-Class Mail Retail parcels represent under 0.4% of all First-Class Mail and less than 0.2% of the total mailstream. 3.5.1 Statistical Validity In 2006, just over 14 million First-Class Mail Retail parcels included Delivery Confirmation service, representing 4% of these parcels. While this represents low usage of the Delivery Confirmation service, it is still representative of the population and, hence, provides an acceptable basis for service performance measurement. The Postal Service will continue to use Delivery Confirmation scans as long as they continue to provide accurate, auditable data for service performance measurement. 3.5.2 “Start-the-Clock” Primarily, the “start-the-clock” occurs at the retail counter when customers purchase Delivery Confirmation for parcels they intend to mail. When postal retail clerks apply Delivery Confirmation forms to these parcels, they scan the Delivery Confirmation barcodes on the forms. The scan is captured via either a Point-of-Sale
(POS)terminal at the retail counter or an Intelligent Mail handheld scanning device. Since the customer is present at the “start-the-clock” event and receives a time-stamped receipt with purchase, there are several validation points. 3.5.3 “Stop-the-Clock” At delivery, the carrier will scan the Delivery Confirmation barcode to denote delivery or that delivery was attempted, either of which will serve to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. Retail parcel reporting for service performance measurement will use the date of the “start-the-clock” event and count the days between the “start-the-clock” and the “stop-the-clock” to determine delivery performance. A comparison is then made to the relevant service standard to determine if the parcel received on-time service performance. 3.6 First-Class Mail Presort Parcels One differentiating characteristic of First-Class Mail Presort parcels is the propensity of mailers to apply Delivery Confirmation. First-Class Mail Presort parcels with Delivery Confirmation service comprise almost half of the mail category. This demonstrates that there are ample parcels that can be included in service performance measurement of this mail category. Using Delivery Confirmation scan data, performance results will be calculated by the Postal Service and then sent to the external measurement contractor for inclusion into the First-Class Mail service aggregated performance results. 3.6.1 Adoption Rates Many mailers already meet the electronic mailing information requirements necessary for performance measurement; however, the Postal Service plans to expand internal Delivery Confirmation sampling processes that verify shipment contents and the accuracy of the electronic mailing information. As verification becomes more prevalent, the volume of parcels that are measured will increase. 3.6.2 Statistical Validity With the selected approach, the performance of an estimated 4.5 million parcels will be sampled for service measurement in FY 2009. Since half of the mail category contains Delivery Confirmation service, concerns about the representativeness of the sample used to measure service performance are minimal. 3.6.3 “Start-the-Clock” For service performance measurement, mailers are required to prepare mail with the Delivery Confirmation barcode and submit electronic mailing information listing the Delivery Confirmation barcodes used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. The “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 3.6.4 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal delivery personnel scan the Delivery Confirmation barcode upon delivery and can denote the delivery or attempted delivery, either of which will serve to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. 3.7 Reporting for First-Class Mail 3.7.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service proposes to continue reporting single-piece First-Class Mail performance as it does today, with the addition of single-piece First-Class Mail parcels. For Presort First-Class Mail pieces, the Postal Service proposes quarterly reporting that will measure service performance separately by day, i.e., overnight, 2-day, and 3-day/4-day, for each district. This greatly expands the number of performance measures reported, yet is consistent with the way EXFC currently reports single-piece First-Class Mail service. The use of data from the final Intelligent Mail scans allows reporting at a higher degree of granularity. The quarterly reports will provide on-time performance for letter, flat, and parcel-shaped Presort First-Class Mail pieces. The Postal Service will send performance data for First-Class Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting purposes. The proposed quarterly report format for on-time performance of Presort First-Class Mail is as follows: Table 4-A 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Presort First-Class Mail; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Presort First-Class Mail District Overnight on-time (percent) Two-day on-time (percent) Three-day/ four-day on-time (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX XX Baltimore District XX XX XX Capital District XX XX XX South Carolina District XX XX XX Greensboro District XX XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX XX Richmond District XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 1 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-A. The mail variance for Presort First-Class Mail pieces will be reported separately with the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The proposed quarterly report format with mail variance for Presort First-Class Mail is as follows: Table 4-B 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Presort First-Class Mail—Mail Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format With Mail Variance for Presort First-Class Mail District Overnight Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-day (percent) Within +3-day (percent) Two-day Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-day (percent) Within +3-day (percent) Three-day/four-day Within +1-day (percent) Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-day (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Baltimore District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Capital District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX South Carolina District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Greensboro District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Richmond District XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 2 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-B. 3.7.2 Annual Reporting Separate national measures will be compiled for each First-Class Mail grouping (single-piece and Presort) and by service standard (one-day, two-day, and three-day/four-day) for letter, flat, and parcel-shaped First-Class Mail. Annual performance consists of a weighted average for each First-Class Mail segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each district. If the segments are not representatively distributed, the weighting will ensure that each district counts for its fair share in the national aggregate. The proposed report format for First-Class Mail Annual Compliance Report is as follows: Table 4-C 1 .—Annual Compliance Report Format for First-Class Mail Sample Annual Report Format for First-Class Mail Mail class Goal (percent) On-time (percent) First-Class Mail: Single-Piece Overnight XX XX Single-Piece Two-Day XX XX Single-Piece Three-Day/Four-Day XX XX Presort Overnight XX XX Presort Two-Day XX XX Presort Three-Day/Four-Day XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 3 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-C. 4. Single-Piece First-Class Mail International 4.1 Background Outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International pieces are accepted by the United States Postal Service for processing and transfer to foreign postal administrations for delivery in other countries. The service standard for the outbound domestic transit of this mail is the same as for First-Class Mail pieces from the domestic 3-digit ZIP Code of origin to the domestic 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the Postal Service International Service Center
(ISC)designated for that origin is located. 18 18 The postal mail processing network includes a handful of ISCs each of which serves a region of the postal network and is responsible for conducting the initial international processing for outbound international mail or the final international processing for inbound international mail. For outbound mail, the ISC for a postal network region may be the gateway facility from which mail is transported from the postal network to the custody of a foreign postal administration. In a small percentage of cases, outbound mail may be transported from its designated ISC to another ISC for the outbound gateway processing that precedes its exit from the postal network. Inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International originates from other countries and is destined for delivery to addresses in 3-digit ZIP Code areas of the United States. The service standard for the inbound domestic transit of this mail is the same as for First-Class Mail that originates from the 3-digit ZIP Code in which the ISC is located to the 3-digit ZIP Code area of the delivery address. Service performance for the domestic transit of both inbound and outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International is currently measured through the International Mail Measurement System (IMMS), which is operated by an external service performance measurement contractor. The Postal Service plans to continue to use IMMS for this purpose. IMMS utilizes only letter-shaped mail pieces, which is the predominant shape of both outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International. The processing of single-piece First-Class Mail International—during either outbound transit from domestic origin to the designated ISC or inbound transit from the designated ISC to the domestic delivery address—is the same as for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats and parcels, which are discussed above in Sections 3.2 and 3.5, respectively. The domestic transit service standards are the same. Accordingly, the Postal Service proposes that the data (EXFC for flats, Delivery Confirmation for parcels) utilized to report for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats and parcels be used to serve as a proxy for estimating the service performance for outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and parcels. 4.1.1 Statistical Validity The purpose of IMMS is to provide independently gathered, accurate, and reliable information on the transport time for the domestic leg of transit for letters. IMMS is designed as an area-level measurement, as International Mail volume varies substantially by postal administrative district. The volume of outbound IMMS test mail is based on estimated international origin-destination pair volumes. The import distributions are based on the mail profiles obtained from the System of International Revenue and Volume-Inbound. A minimum volume of 1,025 pieces within each postal administrative area, per quarter, is used to deliver measurement results that have a precision of +/−3% at a 95% confidence level. 4.1.2 “Start-the-Clock” To test outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International letters, sample international pieces are combined with the bundles created for the domestic EXFC testing program, which is described above in Section 3.2. The date/time that the test bundle is dropped into the collection box or business mail chute is the “start-the-clock” and is reported directly to the independent contractor. To test inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International letter service performance, sample letters addressed to reporters in the United States employed by the contractor are mailed from foreign countries by droppers employed by the contractor. The IMMS service performance measurement contractor has worldwide operations. To maintain the confidentiality of the program, the identities and addresses of the reporters and droppers (as well as the participating foreign countries of the droppers) are known only to the contractor. The inbound “start-the-clock” tracking begins with the first scan of the PLANET Code series on a piece at the ISC designated for the region of the USPS network that includes the delivery address. 4.1.3 “Stop-the-Clock” As an outbound international mail letter travels through the domestic processing system, the PLANET Code 19 information is captured and used to measure its progress. When the letter is sorted at the designated ISC, it receives a PLANET Code scan. The “stop-the-clock” date for an outbound mail piece is the date of the last scan at this facility, unless the scan is after 8 p.m. For example, if the last PLANET Code scan for a piece occurs at 11:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2007, then the “stop-the-clock” date is Friday, July 27, 2007. The number of transit days for outbound mail is the difference between the induction date and the last PLANET Code read at the designated ISC. Because the “stop-the-clock” event takes place at an ISC, as opposed to a delivery point, the transit days calculation includes Sundays and holidays. 19 The PLANET Code is a barcode printed on mail pieces by mailers participating in the CONFIRM program. CONFIRM enables mailers to receive detailed scan information about the pieces they mail in order to track mail through the postal network. An inbound international mail letter flows through the USPS network from the ISC to the delivery addresses. The “stop-the-clock” data for inbound mail is the date the mailpiece is delivered to a reporter employed by the service measurement contractor. The reporter is part of the EXFC survey group and is responsible for receiving the mail and reporting the date of delivery. The number of transit days for inbound test mail is the difference between the delivery date and the date of the first PLANET Code read or ID tag at the designated ISC. Sundays and holidays are not included in the transit days calculation for import mailpieces. Because the service standards for both outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and parcels are based on the domestic transit of such mail, on-time performance is measured against the same set of origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code area service standards as domestic First-Class Mail. To determine if a mailpiece is on time, the number of transit days is compared to the service standard for the applicable origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code pair. 4.2 Reporting Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters 4.2.1 Quarterly Reporting Since not all postal administrative districts have sufficient volumes for reporting, the Postal Service proposes reporting quarterly service performance at a postal administrative area level. Each measurement will include the percent delivered on time for outbound and for inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. All scores are weighted at the area level using proportions derived from a rolling average of estimated volumes for 12 fiscal quarters. The proposed quarterly report format for single-piece First-Class Mail International letters is as follows: Table 4-D 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters Area Outbound/Inbound on-time (percent) Northeast Area xx New York Metro Area xx Eastern Area xx Capital Metro Area xx Southeast Area xx Great Lakes Area xx Western Area xx Southwest Area xx Pacific Area xx NATIONAL xx 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 4 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-D. The mail variance for single-piece First-Class Mail International letters will be reported separately with the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The proposed quarterly report format is as follows: Table 4-E 1 —Quarterly Service Performance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Mail Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format with the Mail Variance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters Area Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Northeast Area XX XX XX New York Metro Area XX XX XX Eastern Area XX XX XX Capital Metro Area XX XX XX Southeast Area XX XX XX Great Lakes Area XX XX XX Western Area XX XX XX Southwest Area XX XX XX Pacific Area XX XX XX NATIONAL XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 5 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-E. 4.2.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting national measures for the percentage of single-piece First-Class Mail International letters delivered on time. Annual performance consists of a weighted average that allots weight based on the volume of mail in every area. If the data are not representatively distributed, the weighting will ensure that each area counts for the correct portion of the national aggregate. The proposed report format for the single-piece First-Class Mail International Annual Compliance Report is as follows: Table 4-F. 1 —Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters Mail class Goal (percent) On-time (percent) Single-Piece International First-Class Mail XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 6 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 4-F. 5. Standard Mail 5.1 Background Standard Mail pieces represented 48.25% of the overall mail volume in FY 2006. 20 At over 100 billion mail pieces per year, it is the largest class of mail. Of Standard Mail, 60.48% are letters, 38.95% are flats, and 0.56% are parcels. Table 5—Standard Mail Volume below illustrates the make-up of Standard Mail. The table also illustrates the percentage that Standard Mail letters, flats, and parcels represent in relation to the overall mailstream. Because the categories of Standard Mail have different requirements for mailers and thus are measured differently, this section has been separated into the following sub-sections: non-carrier route letters, non-carrier route flats, saturation letters and carrier route flats, and saturation flats. 20 *http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Fy2006_RPWsummaryreport.pdf.* Table 5.—Standard Mail Volume Presort Letters Flats 1 Parcels Total (percent) Standard Mail 60.48 38.95 0.56 100 Overall Mailstream 29.18 18.79 0.27 48.25 1 Service performance measurement results for Standard Mail flats will include Package Services flats. 5.2 Standard Mail Non-Carrier Route Letters The primary induction method for non-saturation Standard Mail letters is bulk entry. Standard Mail letters represent 24.68% of the total mailstream. The Postal Service will base service performance measurement on mail induction, and in-home IMB scan data provided by external reporters. 5.2.1 Adoption Rates Participation in the Intelligent Mail pilot, the benefits of the IMB for special services, and the upcoming requirement to use the IMB for automation discounts are expected to generate over 13 billion Standard Mail non-carrier route letters with IMBs and electronic mail information by January 2009. This volume will satisfy the conditions for performance measurement in FY 2009. The estimates for mailer adoption of the IMB and electronic mailing information are: January 2009: 25% of Standard Mail non-carrier route letters; and January 2010: 50% of Standard Mail non-carrier route letters. 5.2.2 “Start-the-Clock” Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information listing the IMBs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets preparation requirements. Mail that does not meet mail preparation requirements will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. Drop shipment mailers create appointments for Standard Mail non-carrier route letters in the Facility Access and Shipment Tracking
(FAST)system at designated facilities, which provide electronic advance notification of the mail profile including arrival times. At sites that are equipped with scanners, containers with Intelligent Mail Container barcodes will be scanned to record arrival times. At other sites, the “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 5.2.3 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters will be equipped with handheld scanners capable of scanning the IMB and will scan all mail they receive containing an IMB. These data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individually scanned mail pieces. By comparing the date of the final Postal Service scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external service performance measurement contractor will calculate a factor for the actual service performance of the last mile for Standard Mail letters. This factor will be combined with the Intelligent Mail data to form the end-to-end service performance. The use of external reporters will allow for mail that is not exposed to or that falls out of automation to be included in service performance measurement. The external reporters will provide the actual “stop-the-clock” on such pieces, and the external measurement contractor will calculate the service performance for those pieces that go to the external reporters. 5.3 Standard Mail Non-Carrier Route Flats The primary induction method for Presort non-carrier route flats is bulk entry. Presort flats represent 6.51% of the total mailstream and, when combined with Standard Mail carrier route flats, are the third largest mail segment behind Presort First-Class Mail letters and Standard Mail letters. Since Package Services flats are operationally handled in the same manner as Standard Mail non-carrier route flats, the Postal Service plans to include the measurement of Package Services flats in the Standard Mail performance results. 5.3.1 Adoption Rates Participation in the Intelligent Mail pilot, the benefits of the IMB for special services, and the upcoming requirement to use the IMB for automation discounts are expected to generate over 3.4 billion Standard Mail non-carrier route flats with IMBs and electronic mail information by January 2009. This volume will satisfy the conditions for performance measurement in FY 2009. The estimates for mailer adoption of the IMB and electronic mailing information are: January 2009: 25% of Standard Mail non-carrier route flats; and January 2010: 50% of Standard Mail non-carrier route flats. 5.3.2 “Start-the-Clock” Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information listing the IMBs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. Drop shipment mailers create appointments for Standard Mail flats in FAST at designated facilities providing advance notification of the mail profile including arrival times. At sites that are equipped with scanners, containers with Intelligent Container barcodes will be scanned to record arrival times. At other sites, the “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 5.3.3 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters will be equipped with handheld IMB scanners and will scan all mail they receive that bears an IMB. The scan data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individually scanned mail pieces. By comparing the date of the final postal mail processing scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external service measurement contractor can calculate a factor for the actual service performance of the last mile for Standard Mail flats. This factor will be combined with the Intelligent Mail data to form end-to-end service performance estimates. 5.4 Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats and Saturation Letters For carrier route flats and saturation letters, the primary induction method is Sectional Center Facility or Delivery Unit dropped bundles and saturation trays. Carrier route flats represented 12.29% of the total mailstream in FY 2006. Due to the distinct characteristics of carrier route flats and saturation letters, the Postal Service is proposing a measurement approach specific to these mail types. 5.4.1 Adoption Rules In order to be included in service performance measurement, Presort saturation letter mailers must provide electronic mailing information and use the Intelligent Mail series of barcodes. Currently, mailers are not required to print a barcode on carrier route flats. Starting in January 2009, mailer use of IMBs will be required for automation discounts and mailer adoption is expected to rise substantially during the weeks immediately prior to the effective date. Furthermore, as described in the previous section, non-saturation carrier route flats will migrate to automated processing, and mailers will be required to pre-apply IMBs to facilitate automated sequencing. Over 6.5 billion Standard Mail carrier route flats are expected to have IMBs by January 2009. This growth in IMB and electronic mailing information adoption will provide sufficient volume and representation of the mail category to enable external measurement. The estimates for mailer adoption of the IMB and electronic mailing information are January 25% of Standard Mail carrier route flats and saturation letters; and January 50% of Standard Mail carrier route flats and saturation letters. 5.4.2 “Start-the-Clock” Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information listing the IMBs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. Drop shipment mailers create appointments for Standard Mail in FAST at designated facilities providing advance notification of the mail profile including arrival times. At sites that are equipped with scanners, containers with Intelligent Container barcodes will be scanned to record arrival times. At other sites, the “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 5.4.3 “Stop-the-Clock” As with non-carrier route Standard Mail flats, carrier route flats with IMBs will be scanned by external reporters to “stop-the-clock.” However, unique barcodes are not required on carrier route or saturation flats. Though the Postal Service expects an increased adoption of IMBs on these pieces as automation of current carrier route flat mail base increases, there will likely be a portion without unique barcodes on each piece. The Postal Service is exploring methods for external reporters to capture the “stop-the-clock,” such as encouraging mailer adoption of the IMBs for this mail category or through the application of alternate barcodes that will allow postal delivery unit personnel to “stop-the-clock” via scanning. As a contingency, the external service measurement contractor will be required to train reporters to identify carrier route flats mail and have them report delivery of such pieces without an IMB scan. These data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individual mail pieces. The external service measurement contractor will calculate the service performance for the pieces that go to the external reporters. 5.5 Standard Mail Saturation Flats The primary induction method for saturation flats are Sectional Center Facility or Delivery Unit dropped bundles. Due to the distinct characteristics of saturation flats, the Postal Service is proposing a measurement approach specific to this mail. 5.5.1 Adoption Rates In order to be included in service performance measurement, Standard Mail saturation flats mailers must provide electronic mailing information. 5.5.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Standard Mail saturation flats will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. 5.5.3 “Stop-the-Clock” Unique barcodes are not required on saturation bundled flats. The Postal Service is exploring methods for external reporters to capture the “stop-the-clock,” such as encouraging mailer adoption of the IMBs for this mail, or through the application of alternate barcodes that will allow postal delivery unit personnel to “stop-the-clock” via scanning. As a contingency, the external service measurement contractor will be required to train its reporters to identify saturation flats and to have those reporters record delivery of such pieces without an IMB scan. These data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individual mail pieces. The external service measurement contractor will calculate the service performance for these pieces that go to the external reporters. 5.6 Standard Mail Parcels Many Presort Standard Mail parcel shippers chose to purchase special services such as Delivery Confirmation for their mail. For reporting purposes, performance results will be calculated by the Postal Service then sent to the external measurement contract for inclusion into the Standard Mail aggregated results. Standard Mail parcels represent 0.3% of the total mailstream, and 9% of Standard Mail parcels have Delivery Confirmation service. This sample size is more than adequate for service performance measurement of this mail category. 5.6.1 Adoption Rates Many Presort mailers already meet the electronic mailing information requirements necessary for performance measurement. The Postal Service plans to expand internal Delivery Confirmation sampling processes that verify shipment contents and the accuracy of the electronic mailing information. As verification becomes more prevalent, the volume of parcels that are measured will increase. 5.6.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Standard Mail parcels will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. For mail that is presented at the BMEU, the acceptance of the mailing will be used as the “start the-clock” as long as the mailing meets the preparation requirements. 5.6.3 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal delivery personnel scan Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery of parcels for which Delivery Confirmation service has been purchased. They can denote the delivery or attempted delivery, either of which will serve to “stop-the-clock.” 5.7 Reporting for Standard Mail 5.7.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service proposes quarterly reporting for Standard Mail that will measure service performance by administrative district separately for destination entry mail and end-to-end mail. Reporting destination entry mail and end-to-end mail separately by day significantly expands the number of performance measures reported and the number of external reporters required. The proposed measurements provide ample detail to assess the quality of service without becoming cost prohibitive for the Postal Service. The quarterly reports will provide service performance scores for letter, flat, and parcel-shaped Standard Mail. The Postal Service will send performance data for Standard Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting purposes. The proposed quarterly report format for Standard Mail is as follows: Table 5-A 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Standard Mail; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Standard Mail District Destination entry on-time (percent) End-to-end on-time (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX Baltimore District XX XX Capital District XX XX South Carolina District XX XX Greensboro District XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX Richmond District XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 7 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 5-A. The mail variance for Standard Mail pieces will be reported separately with the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The proposed quarterly report format for Standard Mail variance is as follows: Table 5-B 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Standard Mail—Mail Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Standard Mail Variance 2 Destination entry Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-day (percent) Within +3-day (percent) End-to-end Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-day (percent) Within +3-day (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX XX XX XX XX Baltimore District XX XX XX XX XX XX Capital District XX XX XX XX XX XX South Carolina District XX XX XX XX XX XX Greensboro District XX XX XX XX XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX XX XX XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX XX XX XX XX Richmond District XX XX XX XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 8 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 5-B. 2 Destination Entry includes DBMC, DSCF, DDU. 5.7.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting a national aggregate measure for the percentage of Standard Mail delivered on time. This Annual Compliance Report includes letter, flat, and parcel-shaped Standard Mail and consists of a weighted average for each Standard Mail segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each district. If the segments are not representatively distributed, the weighting will ensure that each district counts for the appropriate portion of the national aggregate. The proposed report format for Standard Mail Annual Compliance Report is as follows: Table 5-C 1 .—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Standard Mail Mail class Goal On-time (percent) Standard mail XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 9 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 5-C. 5.7.3 Statistical Validity The Postal Service anticipates that 25% of Standard Mail will have an IMB and be measurable by January 2009. Using this adoption rate, the average district will have approximately 4,750 pieces per quarter upon which to base the last mile factor estimates. At 50% IMB coverage, the volume increases to 9,500 pieces per quarter on average. Precision is affected by the last mile factor estimate and mailer adoption of the IMB and electronic mailing information. The Postal Service anticipates a precision between +/−0.5% and +/−0.9% as illustrated in the table below. Table 6.—Precision for Standard Mail Confidence interval (percent) Last mile factor estimate (percent) Coverage of IMB + electronic mailing information (percent) Precision (percent) Standard Mail 95 3 25 +/−0.75 3 50 +/−0.5 5 25 +/−0.9 5 50 +/−0.7 The assumption of last mile factor estimates in the 3-5% range for Standard Mail service is based on the mix of letter and flat volumes, and is an estimate at this point, which can be refined when data is available. It should also be noted that the last mile factor is one piece of the overall service performance estimate, with the performance of the acceptance to final processing scan being the other. The availability of billions of data records to sample from to form these estimates means that we can economically take large samples for individual report cells ( *e.g.* Baltimore SCF-entry Standard Mail, Chicago 3-day First-Class Presorted Mail). The estimated precision levels will be shared with the PRC during the development process. In 2009, the performance of an estimated 2.7 million Standard Mail parcels will be sampled for end-to-end service measurement, representing 9% of these parcels. While this represents low usage of Delivery Confirmation service, it is still representative of the population and, hence, provides an acceptable basis for service performance measurement. 6. Periodicals 6.1 Background Periodicals represented just over 4% of the overall mail volume in FY 2006, 21 with 9 billion mail pieces. Periodicals consist of letters and flats, most of which are destination dropped. The Postal Service will use the same measurement approach for both letters and flats. Since IMB and electronic mailing information adoption for Periodicals is projected to be slower than for Standard Mail and First-Class Mail, the Postal Service will use as an interim approach for performance measurement while IMB and electronic mailing information adoption rates grow. The interim approach relies on external reports generated by Red Tag and DelTrak, which conduct performance research independently. 21 *http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Fy2006_RPWsummaryreport.pdf.* 6.2 Periodicals Letters and Flats All Periodicals are bulk entry, and the vast majority of the volume is flats. Table 7—Periodicals Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of Periodicals Mail. It also illustrates the percentage that each Periodicals shape represents within the overall mailstream. Table 7.—Periodicals Mail Volume Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Total (percent) Periodicals 1.56 98.4 100.0 Overall Mailstream 0.07 4.2 4.25 6.2.1 Adoption Rates Initial adoption of IMBs is projected to be slower for Periodicals than for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail. However, revisions to the technical specifications for the IMB and recent successful tests indicate the IMB is viable for Periodicals. With required use by January 2009, the conservative estimates for IMB and electronic mailing information adoption for Periodicals are: FY 2009: 10.25% of letters and flats; and FY 2010: 25+% of letters and flats. These estimates equate to just over 2.2 billion Periodicals with IMBs and electronic mailing information that satisfy the conditions for performance measurement in FY 2009. 6.2.2 Statistical Validity Different numbers of districts in each area, as well as varying mail volumes and mixes make it challenging to estimate the precision level for Periodicals at this time without the methodology for calculations being fully developed. The Postal Service will continue to work on trying to estimate what precision will likely be achieved, but do not currently have the data or assumptions necessary to make an educated estimate. 6.2.3 Interim Approach In FY 2008, the Postal Service is evaluating two existing mailer-operated measurement systems, Red Tag and DelTrak, to measure Periodicals service performance. The “start-the-clock” for both systems is the mailer-reported induction time. For DelTrak, the transportation company hired by the mailer is required to enter the date/time when mail is dropped at a postal facility. The Postal Service has discussed adding the FAST appointment number to both DelTrak and Red Tag, so the reported “start-the-clock” could be audited in the same manner as is being planned for the long-term IMB-based approach. For Red Tag and DelTrak, the “stop-the-clock” is the delivery date reported online by the external reporters. These external reporters are mainly concentrated in postal administrative districts with high population density. Due to the limited number of reporters participating in these programs, data will only be statistically valid for the desired precision at a national aggregate level. In 2008, the Postal Service is conducting evaluations of these systems to ensure valid data can be available in FY 2008 and used for reporting in FY 2009. 6.2.4 “Start-the-Clock” Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMBs and submit electronic mailing information listing the IMBs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards will be excluded from service performance in order to ensure that the system produces a valid, reliable measurement score. Drop shipment mailers provide advance notification in FAST at designated facilities, providing mail profile, to include arrival times. At sites that are equipped with scanners, containers with Intelligent Container barcodes will be scanned to record arrival times. At other sites, the “start-the-clock” will be the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information will be made available to mailers. 6.2.5 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters will be equipped with handheld IMB scanners and will scan any IMBs on mail that they receive. These scan data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individually scanned mail pieces. By comparing the date of the final postal mail processing scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external service measurement contractor can calculate a factor for the actual service performance of the last mile for Periodicals. This factor can be combined with the Intelligent Mail data to form the end-to-end service performance measure. 6.3 Reporting for Periodicals 6.3.1 Quarterly Reporting In 2008, the Postal Service is reviewing Red Tag and DelTrak data for reporting at the national level on a quarterly basis for the reasons stated above. The Postal Service is currently in discussions with both the operators of DelTrak and Red Tag to develop and setup the system for combined measurement no later than FY 2009; however, the initial proposed format includes national aggregate scores for percent delivered on time, and within 1-day, 2-days, and 3-days of the applicable standard. Due to the slower projected adoption rates for Periodicals, the Postal Service proposes reporting service performance at a postal administrative area level in the interim until the volume of Periodicals with IMBs and electronic mailing information is reliable enough to provide statistically significant results at a lower level of aggregation. 22 As IMB and electronic mailing information adoption grows and additional performance data become available, the granularity will increase and allow for reporting at the district level. 22 A postal area is the administrative level directly below national headquarters and is comprised of multiple subordinate postal districts. There are currently nine areas that span the entirety of the postal network; each of the 80 districts is part of one area. The proposed quarterly report format for Periodicals is as follows: Table 7-A 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Periodicals; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Periodicals Area On-time (percent) Northeast Area XX New York Metro Area XX Eastern Area XX Capital Metro Area XX Southeast Area XX Great Lakes Area XX Western Area XX Southwest Area XX Pacific Area XX NATIONAL XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 10 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 7-A. The mail variance for Periodicals will be reported separately, reflecting the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The proposed quarterly report format with the mail variance for Periodicals is as follows: Table 7-B. 1 —Quarterly Service Performance for Periodicals Mail Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format With Mail Variance for Periodicals Area Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Northeast Area XX XX XX New York Metro Area XX XX XX Eastern Area XX XX XX Capital Metro Area XX XX XX Southeast Area XX XX XX Great Lakes Area XX XX XX Western Area XX XX XX Southwest Area XX XX XX Pacific Area XX XX XX NATIONAL XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 11 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 7-B. 6.3.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting national measures for the percentage of Periodicals mail delivered on time. Annual performance consists of a weighted average for each Periodicals segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in every district. If the data are not representatively distributed, the weighting will ensure that each district counts for the correct portion of the national aggregate. The proposed report format for Periodicals Mail Annual Compliance Report is as follows: Table 7-C. 1 —Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Periodicals Mail class Goal On-time (percent) Periodicals XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 12 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 7-C. 7. Intelligent Mail Adoption As reflected in the three sections above pertaining to First-Class Mail, Standard Mail and Periodical pieces, the Postal Service intends to rely on Intelligent Mail Barcodes as a central component of service performance measurement. That is not the case for Package Services. Accordingly, before discussing Package Services below in Section 8, it is worthwhile to emphasize several important considerations relevant to IMBs and electronic mailing information. During initial discussions with the PRC, concerns were raised regarding IMB adoption. Mailer participation and adoption of the Intelligent Mail series of barcodes and associated electronic mailing information is critical to the success of service performance measurement. The Postal Service is evaluating strategies to encourage mailer adoption and has been collaborating with the industry to mitigate potential adoption obstacles. 7.1 Intelligent Mail Pilot The Postal Service launched the Intelligent Mail system pilot with Presort First-Class Mail letters in September 2006. Following the success of the initial pilot, the program expanded to include Standard Mail letters and flats in July 2007. By the end of FY 2007, over 350 mailings and 18 million mail pieces from five large mailers and presort companies have been tracked and service measurement calculated. The Postal Service is using this pilot to demonstrate the mailers' ability to meet the mail make-up requirements for service measurement and the Postal Service's ability to calculate measurement and Seamless Acceptance. When the service performance measurement system is implemented for letter and flat shaped mail, an external contractor will perform the calculations. The pilot is in the process of expanding by increasing the volume of tracked mail pieces and adding more mail acceptance sites. As of October 2007, the average Intelligent Mail volume is forecasted to increase to 1.4 million pieces per day and 7 million per week. In January 2008, the addition of new mailers to the pilot will increase Intelligent Mail volume to an average of 7 million pieces per day and 35 million pieces per week. These volumes and mailer capabilities demonstrate the feasibility of the system. 7.2 Growth of Intelligent Mail Barcode
(IMB)Adoption A major component of the new system is the IMB. The IMB has only been available to mailers for a little over a year. The chart below illustrates the capability of the industry to provide the volumes needed for measurement. The volumes show continued growth between June and September 2007. During the first year of use, postal mail processing equipment scanned over one billion IMBs. By September 2007, 135 medium-to-large-volume postal customers and data consolidators were using IMBs, and approximately 2% of scans on postal automation equipment were IMBs. The following figure shows actual IMB scans for previous three months and an estimated trend line depicting the growth. [Figure 13, captioned “Growth of IMBs,” is not reproduced here. It can be viewed by accessing the pdf version of the Service Performance Measurement filing (December 5, 2007) posted on the Commission's web site.] With the January 2009 requirement to utilize IMBs, there is a potential for IMB volumes to exceed 2 billion per week and 100 billion per year at that point. The table below contains estimated mailer adoption rates of both the IMB and the electronic mailing information for performance measurement. Table 8.—Estimated Mailer Adoption Rates 2009 (percent) 2010 (percent) First-Class Mail: Presort Letters 25-50 50-75 Standard Mail: Letters 25-50 50-75 Flats 25-50 50-75 Periodicals: All 10-25 25-75 8. Package Services 8.1 Background Package Services market-dominant products include single-piece Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, and Media Mail. Presort Package Services flat-shaped mail is mainly composed of oversized catalogs, which are operationally handled the same as Standard Mail flats. Accordingly, the Postal Service will measure and report on Presort Package Services flats using the same approach as Standard Mail. Package Services parcel-shaped mail represented less than 0.3 of the overall mail volume in FY 2006. 23 Among Package Services parcels, 16 are Retail and 84 are Presort. 23 *http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/Fy2006_RPWsummaryreport.pdf.* Measurement sample size for parcels is significantly higher than for letter and flat-shaped mail. This is due to the inclination of mailers to purchase Delivery Confirmation on parcels, especially Presort parcels. For Retail parcel-shaped Package Services mail, the Postal Service captures the “start-the-clock” at the retail counter as part of the Delivery Confirmation payment transaction. The “stop-the-clock” is captured at delivery or attempted delivery. The result is an unparalleled scanning volume that creates a sample size more than sufficient for performance measurement. For Presort Package Services parcels, mailers are currently required to submit electronic mailing information, which will be used for verification of shipment contents and mail preparation quality. As the verification processes are rolled out nationally, the volume of Presort parcels that are measured will increase. *Table 9* —Package Services Parcel-Shaped Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of parcels by entry method. The table also illustrates the percentage that market-dominant Package Services parcel-shaped mail represents within the overall domestic mailstream. Table 9.—Package Services Parcel-Shaped Mail Volume Retail (percent) Presort (percent) Total (percent) Package Services (Parcel-shaped) 16.0 84.0 100.0 Total Domestic Mailstream 0.04 0.23 0.27 8.2 Retail Package Services The Postal Service currently measures service performance for Package Services Retail mail via Delivery Confirmation scans. This approach for measuring performance is working well, so there are no plans to change the measurement method for this mail. Retail Package Services mail represents 16.0% of all Package Services parcels, but only 0.04% of the total mailstream. Delivery Confirmation is included on 15% of such parcels, which represents a significant portion of the mail. 8.2.1 Statistical Validity In 2006, over 14 million Package Services parcels included Delivery Confirmation service, representing 15% of these parcels. Since nearly all of these parcels are scanned at retail and delivery, this measurement is representative and, hence, provides an acceptable basis for service performance measurement. In 2009, the performance of an estimated 2.7 million parcels will be sampled for service measurement, representing 9% of these parcels. While this represents low usage of Delivery Confirmation service, it is still representative of the population and, hence, provides an acceptable basis for service performance measurement. 8.2.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Retail Package Services mail occurs at the retail counter when the customer purchases Delivery Confirmation. When retail clerks apply the Delivery Confirmation forms to parcels, they scan the Delivery Confirmation form barcodes. The scans are captured via either a POS terminal at the retail counter or an Intelligent Mail handheld scanning device. Because the customer is present at the “start-the-clock” event and receives a time-stamped receipt with purchase, there are several validation points. 8.2.3 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal delivery personnel scan the Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery or attempted delivery, either of which will serve to “stop-the-clock.” 8.3 Presort Package Services Presort Package Services mail represent 84.0% of all parcel-shaped Package Services mail volume and 0.23% of the total mailstream. Delivery Confirmation service is included on 21% of Presort Package Services mail pieces. 8.3.1 Adoption Rates Many mailers already meet the electronic mailing information requirements necessary for performance measurement. The Postal Service plans to expand internal Delivery Confirmation sampling processes that verify shipment contents and the accuracy of the electronic mailing information. As verification becomes more prevalent, the volume of parcels that are measured will increase. 8.3.2 Statistical Validity With the selected approach, the performance of an estimated 5 million parcels will be sampled for service measurement in FY 2009. Since the 21% of the mail category contains Delivery Confirmation service, concerns about the representativeness of the sample used to measure service performance are minimal. 8.3.3 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Presort Package Services is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service unit. Since it is not practical to scan every parcel in the Presort shipment, the Postal Service will instead scan a subset of the parcels to validate shipment content. For mail that is presented at the BMEU, the acceptance of the mailing will be used as the “start-the-clock” as long as the mailing meets the preparation requirements. As with mailings that enter at the dock, the Postal Service will scan containers that have an Intelligent Mail Container barcode to validate mailer shipment content and the acceptance time. 8.3.4 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal delivery personnel scan Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery or attempted delivery, either of which will serve to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. 8.4 Reporting for Package Services 8.4.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting quarterly on the percentage of mail that is delivered on time. The proposed quarterly report format for Package Services parcels is as follows: Table 9-A 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Package Services; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Package Services Parcels District On-time (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX Baltimore District XX Capital District XX South Carolina District XX Greensboro District XX Mid-Carolinas District XX No. Virginia District XX Richmond District XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 14 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 9-A. The mail variance for Package Services parcels will be reported separately with the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The proposed quarterly report format with the mail variance for Package Services is as follows: Table 9.-B 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Package Services Mail Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format with Mail Variance for Package Services Parcels District Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX XX Baltimore District XX XX XX Capital District XX XX XX South Carolina District XX XX XX Greensboro District XX XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX XX Richmond District XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 15 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 9-B. 8.4.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting national measures for the percentage of Package Services mail delivered on time. Annual performance consists of a weighted average that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each district. If the data are not representatively distributed, the weighting will ensure that each district counts for its fair share in the national aggregate. The proposed report format for Parcels Annual Compliance Report is as follows: Table 9-C. 1 —Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Package Services Mail class Goal (percent) On-time (percent) Package Services XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 16 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 9-C. 9. Special Services 9.1 Background There are two categories of special services: ancillary and stand-alone. Ancillary special services are purchased in addition to the postage applicable to First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package Services. These optional special services are varied in nature and include Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Return Receipt, Registered Mail, Collect on Delivery, Address Correction Service, and CONFIRM, among others. In contrast to ancillary special services, stand-alone special services are not contingent on sending or receiving a particular mail piece and include services such as P.O. Box Service and Address List Services. 9.2 Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, Electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery A principal feature of these special services is the electronic provisioning of information by the Postal Service to the sender regarding the delivery status of a particular mail piece. That information may consist of confirmation that delivery was attempted, completed, or that a copy of the recipient's signature was captured. For a number of these services, delivery-related information is generated by postal scanning of mail pieces at delivery units or during delivery. Before the completion of daily work shifts, postal delivery personnel dock their portable handheld scanners, so that delivery information pertinent to each scanned mail piece can be transmitted to appropriate postal data systems. New scanners currently being deployed allow for signatures to be captured at delivery and transmitted with the delivery information. Delivery information captured is then made available to the purchaser of the special service. The service measurement for Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery will use barcode scans to measure the time between when delivery information was collected and when that information was made available to the customer. When the delivery event scan is captured by the handheld scanner, a timestamp is associated to the scan; this is the “start-the-clock.” Once the device is docked, the delivery event scan information is transmitted to the centralized system where it is made available to customers and the posting time is recorded. The posting time is the “stop-the-clock.” 9.3 CONFIRM and Address Correction Electronic information from the Postal Service to the sender is a key component for CONFIRM and automated Address Correction services as well. CONFIRM scanning of mail and identification of automated address correction of applicable mail pieces are performed passively by automated mail processing equipment, which then transmit information to postal data systems. Information from these systems is made available to the purchaser of the special service. The service measurement for CONFIRM and automated Address Correction will use the IMB to measure between the time scan information was collected and the time scan information was made available to the customer. When the piece is scanned, a timestamp is associated to the scan to provide the “start-the-clock.” When the scan information is transmitted to the centralized system and made available to customers, the posting time is recorded. The posting time is the “stop-the-clock.” 9.4 P.O. Box Service Post Office Box Service will be internally measured using scanning technology to ensure timely availability of the mail by the posted “uptime.” The “uptime” is the time of day by which customers can expect to collect the mail that is committed for that day from their P.O. Box. A barcode will be placed in the P.O. Box Section that the Postal Service will scan after the distribution of this mail is complete. USPS will evaluate performance by comparing the actual completion of the box distribution for this mail compared to the posted “uptime” for the location. 9.5 Insurance Claims Processing The Customer Inquiry Claims Response System (CICRS) is an application used to process indemnity claims when insured articles are lost or damaged in the mail. For domestic claims, after the customer has completed the appropriate claim form, Postal Service employees complete the claim form and submit it for processing via the CICRS system. The claim is keyed into the system and the data is uploaded for processing. CICRS processing includes identifying claims that are not complete and require additional information from the customer. Correspondence is automatically generated and mailed to the customer requesting the missing information, which includes instructions with where to send the additional information. Once all information is received by CICRS, the system will proceed to the claims processing resolution phase. The date that all information is available for claims processing resolution is the “start-the-clock.” Depending on the value of the item lost or damaged, the claim may be automatically paid or denied by the system or sent for review by an adjudicator or consumer advocate. The adjudicator or consumer advocate decides if the claim should be paid, denied, or closed. The date either the system or the adjudicator pays, denies, or closes the claim is the “stop-the-clock.” 9.6 Money Order Inquiry Processing The Money Order Inquiry System
(MOIS)is an application used to process Postal Money Order inquiries made by customers. After the customer has completed the appropriate form, Postal Service employees submit the form to a centralized unit for processing. The inquiry is scanned into the system and the data are uploaded for processing. MOIS processing includes verifying if the money order subject to inquiry has been cashed, by running the money order number against a database of cashed money orders. The system generates correspondence to customers regarding the status of the money order in question. The Postal Service intends to establish a service standard of 15 business days for this service. The “start-the-clock” is the date the Money Order Inquiry form is filed by the customer; the “stop-the-clock” is the date the money order inquiry information is issued to the customer by the Money Order Inquiry System. 9.7 Address List Services Address List Services are available to customers seeking correction of the addresses or ZIP Codes on their mailing lists, or the sequencing of their address cards. Address Changes for Election Boards, corrections of addresses or ZIP Codes on mailing lists, and Sequencing of Address Cards will use an external customer survey to measure customer satisfaction with the timeliness of receipt for their address list request. The service performance measure will include the customer satisfaction percentage. 9.8 Reporting 9.8.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service proposes reporting Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery as an aggregate score on a quarterly basis by district. The service standards for these special services are aggregated as they all measure the time elapsed from when the delivery information is captured by the Postal Service until it is available to the customer. The Post Office Box Service will also be reported quarterly by district. Since CONFIRM, Address Correction, Insurance Claims Processing, Money Order Inquiry Processing, and Address List Services are national services and are not linked with particular postal districts, they will be reported at a national level. The Postal Service proposes reporting quarterly on the percentage of those services that meet the service standard. The proposed quarterly report format for Special services is as follows: Table 9.-D 1 .—Quarterly Service Performance for Special Services; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Special Services Reported at the District Level District Delivery information special services combined score 2 on-time (percent) Post office box service on-time (percent) CAPITAL METRO AREA XX XX Baltimore District XX XX Capital District XX XX South Carolina District XX XX Greensboro District XX XX Mid-Carolinas District XX XX No. Virginia District XX XX Richmond District XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 17 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 9-D. 2 Includes Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery. The proposed quarterly report format for CONFIRM, Address Correction, Insurance Claims Processing, Postal Money Order Inquiry Processing, and Address List Services is as follows: Table 9-E. 1 —Quarterly Report for Special Services; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Special Services Reported at the National Level Confirm on-time Address correction on-time (percent) Insurance claims processing on-time (percent) Money order inquiry on-time (percent) Address list services satisfied (percent) NATIONAL XX XX XX XX XX 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Figure 18 in the Proposal has been changed to Table 9-E. 9.8.2 Annual Reporting Due to the numerous different measurements presented in the Special Service category, the Postal Service will develop an annual index or indices that consolidate the multiple measurements into an aggregate score(s). The exact approach is still being developed; however, the methodology is intended to be similar to the aggregate measurement used for the Customer Service Measurement (CSM). 10. Service Performance Measurement Validation Every aspect of the service performance measurement system must reflect the highest degree of commitment to data integrity. Accordingly, the Postal Service will implement appropriate internal control processes in addition to the existing quality control processes in place for the external measurement systems (EXFC and IMMS). The existing measurement systems apply a proven and auditable approach to quality assurance backed up by 17 years experience in mail performance measurement. The Postal Service's proposed measurement approach includes internal validation processes to ensure data quality. Business rules will be defined to ensure that only mailings that do not meet mail preparation standards are excluded from service performance. In addition, service performance data will be made available to the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)for auditing purposes. 11. Appendix 11.1 Appendix I—Mail Volumes Single-piece Letters 2006 Total volume Flats 2006 Total volume Parcels 2006 Total volume 2006 DelCon Presort Letters 2006 Total volume 2009 Adoption Flats 2006 Total volume 2009 Adoption Parcels 2006 Total volume 2006 DelCon 2009 Sample ALL 2006 Total 1. Total Mail Volume by Mail Classification (000's)** Adoption Rate 25% 25% 5% First-Class 38,127,475 3,405,121 350,979 14,208 54,550,677 13,637,669 993,985 248,496 189,216 89,782 4,489 97,617,453 Periodicals 140,682 35,171 8,880,202 2,220,051 9,020,884 Standard 61,971,735 15,492,934 39,911,201 9,977,800 576,623 54,473 2,724 102,459,559 Standard Carrier Route 9,561,885 2,390,471 26,087,072 6,521,768 36,648,967 Standard Non Carrier Route 52,409,850 13,102,463 13,824,129 3,456,032 66,810,602 Package Services * 12,000 93,599 14,105 326,374 81,594 490,738 103,108 5,155 922,711 * Package Services excludes Parcel Select because it is not a market dominant product and Service Performance Measurement is not required. ** 2006 Total mail volume sums to 210 billion due the exclusion of Parcel Select because it is not a market dominant product. 2. Percent of Mail Class First-Class 39.058% 3.488% 0.360% 0.015% 55.88% 13.97% 1.02% 0.25% 0.19% 0.09% 0.26% 100.000% Periodicals 1.56% 0.39% 98.44% 24.61% 100.000% Standard 60.48% 15.12% 38.95% 9.74% 0.56% 0.05% 0.16% 100.000% Standard Carrier Route 26.82% 6.71% 73.18% 18.29% 100.000% Standard Non Carrier Route 78.45% 8.42% 20.69% 9.69% 100.000% Package Services 1.301% 10.144% 1.529% 0.92% 0.23% 53.18% 11.17% 0.30% 100.000% 3. Percent of Total Mailstream First-Class 17,955% 1.604% 0.165% 0.007% 25.690% 6.422% 0.468% 0.117% 0.089% 0.042% 0.002% 45.971% Periodicals 0.066% 0.017% 4.182% 1.045% 4.248% Standard 29.184% 7.296% 18.795% 4.699% 0.272% 0.026% 0.001% 48.252% Standard Carrier Route 4.503% 1.126% 12.285% 3.071% 16.788% Standard Non Carrier Route 24.681% 6.170% 6.510% 1.628% 31.463% Package Services 0.006% 0.044% 0.007% 0.154% 0.038% 0.231% 0.049% 0.002% 0.435% FY '09 volume per household * FY '09 IMB/electronic mailing information adoption FY '09 IMB volume per household Volume at external reporters 4. Estimated Volume to External Reporters First-Class Mail—Single-piece 223 N/A N/A N/A First-Class Mail—Presort 296 25% 74 740,000 Standard 760 25% 190 1,900,000 Periodicals 59 10-25% 5.9-14.75 59,000-147,500 * Per 2006 Household Diary Study Table 1 includes the total mail volumes in FY 2006 for each mail category. This table also includes the projected IMB and electronic mailing information adoption rates for FY 2009 and the estimated volumes for each year. The estimated volumes for FY 2009 represent the total mail volumes that will be included in service performance measurement. All volumes are in thousands. Table 2 depicts the percent of the mail class that the mail category represents. For instance, single-piece First-Class Mail letters make up 39.058% of all First-Class Mail. Table 3 illustrates the percent of the total mailstream that the mail category represents. For example, single-piece First-Class Mail letters make up 17.955% of the entire mailstream. Table 4 provides an estimate of the volume expected to be received by the external reporters in FY 09. The volumes were estimated as follows: According to the 2006 USPS Household Diary Study, 1338 non-expedited mail pieces were received per U.S. household during the past year broken down into the volumes shown in FY '09 Volume Per Household; Applying the Adoption Rates the result is FY '09 IMB Volume Per Household; and Since there will be 10,000 external reporters, the total mail volume scanned by external reporters is shown in Volume @ External Reporters. This estimate provides the number of pieces with end-to-end service measured by the external reporters in order to determine the factor differential for each mail category. This analysis assumes uniform distribution of the mail for each mail class and mail shape. It also assumes reporters never miss a day reporting and no mail received by reporters is excluded due to improper mailer preparation. 11.2 Appendix II—Enablers The success of the service performance measurement system relies on many efforts already underway at the Postal Service. The Postal Service expects completion of all components needed for service performance measurement by 2009. 11.2.1 Intelligent Mail Series of Barcodes The Postal Service has recently introduced three new Intelligent Mail barcodes that enable the tracking of pieces, handling units, and containers as they move across the Postal Service network. Each of these barcodes are mailer applied and have a common customer identifier called the Mailer ID
(MID)which can be used to associate the mail asset to the appropriate mailer. Each barcode also has a field that is used to support a serial number allowing mailers of any size to identify their mail assets. The Mailer ID field within the Intelligent Mail barcodes is used to identify Mail Owners and/or Mailing Agents. The MIDs are assigned by the Postal Service to each Mail Owner and/or Mailing Agent that requests them. A MID can be a 9-digit field or a 6-digit identifier and is assigned based on the annual mail volume of the mailer. MIDs are used in the Intelligent Mail barcode, Intelligent Mail Tray barcode, and Intelligent Mail Container barcode. [Figure 19, captioned “Intelligent Mail Series of Barcodes” is not reproduced here. It can be viewed by accessing the pdf version of the Service Performance Measurement filing (December 5, 2007) posted on the Commission's Web site.] *Intelligent Mail Barcode (IMB).* The Intelligent Mail barcode is a 31-digit Postal Service barcode used to sort and track letters and flats. Unlike the POSTNET barcode that only contains the delivery point ZIP Code, the new Intelligent Mail barcode contains additional fields such as the Service Type Indicator, Mailer ID, and Serial Number. These fields expand the ability to track individual pieces and provide greater visibility into the mailstream. With this Intelligent Mail barcode, a mailer can request services such as tracking and address correction all in one barcode. The Intelligent Mail barcode allows the mailer to number mail so that each mailpiece in a mailing can be uniquely identified. It contains a Mailer ID field that allows the mailer to obtain data about mailings. *Intelligent Mail Tray Barcode.* A cornerstone of the overall tracking strategy is the capability to uniquely track handling units such as trays, sacks, and tubs. The tray label that is in use today is a 10-digit label used solely for routing. The new transitional label, the 10/24, has the old barcode on it and a new 24-digit Intelligent Mail Tray barcode. The 24-digit barcode includes routing information and data that can uniquely identify handling units and allows for the identification and tracking of the progress of trays, sacks, and tubs. The inclusion of the old 10-digit label is a transitional strategy as the Postal Service enhances all processing systems to read the new 24-digit barcode. Ideally, mailpieces with the Intelligent Mail barcodes applied to them are placed into trays that are presorted and being routed to specific destinations. Using the Intelligent Mail Tray barcode allows the pieces within the tray to be linked to each specific tray prepared. [Figure 20, captioned “Intelligent Mail Tray Barcode Affixed to Postal Service Mail Tray shows the Intelligent Mail Tray barcode affixed to a tray,” is not reproduced here. It can be viewed by accessing the pdf version of the Service Performance Measurement filing (December 5, 2007) posted on the Commission's Web site.] *Intelligent Mail Container Barcode.* The Postal Service is transitioning to a new pallet label for application on containers. The new pallet label contains the Intelligent Mail Container barcode allowing mailers to uniquely identify each container in a mailing. The Intelligent Mail Container barcode is applied to a customer's containers that contain trays and sacks. This barcode is applied by mailers and scanned at induction and at other points of the mailstream by handheld scanners. [Figure 21, captioned “Intelligent Mail Container Barcode Affixed to a Mailer Pallet shows the Intelligent Mail Container barcode affixed to a pallet,” is not reproduced here. It can be viewed by accessing the pdf version of the Service Performance Measurement filing (December 5, 2007) posted on the Commission's Web site.] *Intelligent Mail package Barcode.* The Intelligent Mail Package barcode conforms to different barcoding standards to accommodate the package market, but its benefits are similar to those created by the Intelligent Mail barcode for letters and flats. It contains information about the package and the mailer, which is used to sort and track the packages. [Figure 22, captioned “Intelligent Mail Package Barcode Affixed to a Parcel shows the Intelligent Mail Package barcode affixed to a parcel,” is not reproduced here. It can be viewed by accessing the pdf version of the Service Performance Measurement filing (December 5, 2007) posted on the Commission's web site.] 11.2.2 Electronic Mailing Information There are three forms of electronic mailing information transmission for letter and flat-shaped mail: Mail.dat®, Web Services, and Postage Statement Wizard®. All involve sending information to the Postal Service's *PostalOne!* ® system. All three of these options provide customers the ability to submit electronic information about their mailings, which the Postal Service can use to generate the necessary documentation to support verification, payment, and “start-the-clock.” This electronic information can also be used to automate payment processes using electronic payment options such as ACH Credit or Debit. *PostalOne! System.* The *PostalOne!* system enables Intelligent Mail by serving as the single point of entry for all electronic mailing information used in service performance measurement to validate mail piece scan data. The *PostalOne!* system manages business mailing transactions and streamlines the mail acceptance process by facilitating the electronic exchange of mailing information between mailers and the Postal Service. This collaboration gives customers a streamlined process for mail entry, payment, tracking and reporting. Customers select one of the electronic mailing information transmission methods (Mail.dat, Web Services, Postage Statement Wizard) and send the electronic information using the *PostalOne!* system. This information management system provides an electronic linkage between a customer's mailing information and Postal Service business mail acceptance and induction processes. The *PostalOne!* system translates this customer generated electronic information into mailing documentation. Thus, mailers are able to avoid the creation of paper based forms and use technology to manage their mailing data. *PostalOne!* can also use this information to automate payment processes using ACH Debit or Credit payment methods. With the *PostalOne!* system, mailers have 24X7 access to their mailing documentation and financial transaction information. *Mail.dat®.* Mail.dat is a composite file structure that was developed by the IDEAlliance® organization for the industry to communicate mailing information across the mail supply chain. Mail.dat files are sent electronically to the *PostalOne!* system where they are stored and used to generate documentation to support verification and payment. *Web Services.* Web Services enables customers to submit mailing information using a Web Service over a secure connection (HTTPS) with the Postal Service. Web Services use a SOAP protocol to submit information in an XML format that ensures that the data can be sent and received by applications written in various languages and deployed on various platforms. *Postage Statement Wizard.* The Postage Statement Wizard
(PSW)is a tool that provides a secure way to submit a postage statement online using a *PostalOne!* account. The PSW verifies completed information for an online postage statement. The PSW automatically populates the permit holder section of the postage statement based on the account number provided. It guides the user through the items needed to complete the statement based on information provided. When entering mailing information through PSW, it automatically calculates the postage and validates the information entered. Once the postage statement is completed online, the electronic statements will be submitted directly to the acceptance unit. There is one method of electronic mailing information for parcel-shaped mail—the Confirmation Services file. The Confirmation Services file is submitted to the Product Tracking System (PTS). Electronic mailing information is a requirement for Presort parcel mailers to qualify for the electronic rate option. *Product Tracking System.* The Product Tracking System
(PTS)provides tracking information for Confirmation Services, i.e., Delivery Confirmation and Signature Confirmation, as well as Express Mail. Parcel mailers create manifests and submit them electronically to the Product Tracking System. The electronic manifests are processed in PTS and then sent to *PostalOne!* for financial reconciliation. *Confirmation Services file.* To qualify for the reduced rates of the electronic Confirmation Services option, mailers are required to send a file electronically with a listing of all the barcodes and some related shipping information. The electronic file contains information about the mailer, the date and time of mailing, the entry facility, the tracking number, and the destination ZIP Code for each parcel. Delivery information about the mail pieces is made available electronically in extract files. The Delivery information includes an “electronic receipt” for each mail piece submitted and associated scan events. Payment for the postage is unaffected by this service. 11.2.3 Facility Access and Shipment Tracking
(FAST)The Facility Access and Shipment Tracking
(FAST)system is an electronic appointment system that mailers use to schedule the deposit of mail at postal facilities. Customers may schedule appointments online using the FAST web site or they may submit appointment requests using the Transaction Messaging TM specifications submitted through *PostalOne!* /FAST Web Services. This convenient messaging protocol provides customers the opportunity to integrate the appointment scheduling process into their supply chain management software and receive information about their appointments from the Postal Service electronically. FAST takes into account mail shape ( *e.g.* , letters, flats, and parcels) and pallet presort-level information to maximize the capacity offered at each facility. All Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package Services drop shipment customers are required to schedule appointments using FAST at designated facilities. First-Class Mail will be enabled in 2008. 11.2.4 Seamless Acceptance Seamless Acceptance streamlines the business mail acceptance process by automating the Business Mail Entry
(BME)mail verification processes for letter and flat mail. By applying unique barcodes on mail pieces, handling units and containers, and providing barcode information in electronic mailing information, Seamless Acceptance mailers support the automation of verification processes. Seamless Acceptance mail receives Postal Service mail-processing scans of the barcodes and the Postal Service uses the information gathered to verify the electronic mailing information submitted by the mailers and to determine mail preparation quality. The business benefits envisioned from the implementation of Seamless Acceptance include, but are not limited to: Increasing the quality of the mail and mailers' electronic mailing information by providing timely feedback to mailers through actionable mail quality reports; Allowing mailers additional flexibility in selecting the timeframe and location of mail entry; Improving the accuracy of the verification process through analysis of a larger percentage of mail pieces of a mailing; Introducing more accountability for all participants by basing verification results on mail processing data instead of clerk performed tests; Enhancing automation compatibility based on results from Postal Service mail processing equipment; Identifying and eliminating systemic problems in Postal Service mail handling and mailer preparation; Providing near real-time visibility for both mailers and the Postal Service; Decreasing cycle time and reduce costs across the mail supply chain; Increasing amount of time Postal Service clerks are available for customer service; and Reducing/removing sampling procedures during verification. 11.2.5 Mail Processing Equipment As mail processing equipment sorts a mail piece, information is gathered from machine scans to determine the piece's location within the postal network. All major mail processing equipment has the ability to scan the Intelligent Mail barcode on mail pieces during processing. The machines with mail piece barcode scanning capability include: *Letters:* Delivery Barcode Sorters (DBCS), Mail Processing Barcode Sorters (MPBCS), and Carrier Sequence Barcode Sorters (CSBCS); *Flats:* AFSM 100 and UFSM 1000; 24 24 UFSM 1000 can read barcodes printed at original specifications and will be updated in early 2008 to read barcodes printed according to the revised specifications. *Packages:* Automated Package Processing System
(APPS)and Small Package Bundle Sorter (SPBS). 11.2.6 Intelligent Mail Device
(IMD)The Intelligent Mail Device
(IMD)is an ergonomically designed, handheld computer capable of running mail processing applications and scanning barcodes. The Postal Service has rolled out new Intelligent Mail Devices to carriers, mail handlers, and drivers. The Intelligent Mail Devices currently in the field can read IMBs, but will need a software upgrade in order to collect data using new start- and “stop-the-clock” event codes, parse the data in the codes, and make that data available to other USPS systems. 11.2.7 Intelligent Mail Data Acquisition System (IMDAS) IMDAS has replaced the handheld scanners that carriers, mail handlers, and drivers formerly used to scan IMBs on handling units and Delivery Confirmation forms. The Intelligent Mail Data Acquisition System (IMDAS) program is implementing a standardized hardware and software platform for mobile data collection and data transfer through scanning technology. The IMDAS program promotes a family of handheld data acquisition devices to support the current scanning needs of Postal Service products and services, as well as support the future scanning needs of Intelligent Mail products and services. The IMDAS supports tracking mail pieces, unit loads, transportation, inventory and performance operations using a standardized family of mobile devices. This program includes replacing the current Mobile Data Collection Device
(MDCD)scanners, which postal personnel use for delivery operations, dock operations, and customer service operations. The Intelligent Mail Data Acquisition System was developed using integrated architecture and infrastructure that are consistent with industry best practices. The IMDAS yields an accurate, reliable, and stable flow of data, and is required to interface successfully with the existing postal infrastructure. III. Ordering Paragraphs *It is ordered:* 1. Docket No. PI2008-1 is established for the purpose of receiving comments regarding the Postal Service's proposed service performance measurement systems. 2. Interested persons may submit written comments on any or all aspects of the Postal Service's proposed service performance measurement systems and reporting systems by no later than January 18, 2008. 25 25 Changed from January 7, 2008 (per Order No. 48) by Order No. 49. 3. Reply comments may be filed by no later than February 1, 2008. 26 26 Changed from January 18, 2008 (per Order No. 48) by Order No. 49. 4. Kenneth E. Richardson, acting director of the Office of the Consumer Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public in this docket. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . (Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2)). Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24528 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56947; File No. SR-Amex-2007-134] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584 To Delete the Reference to the Weekly Bulletin December 12, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 6, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Amex. The Amex filed the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78S(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex proposes to adopt changes to Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584 to delete the reference to the Weekly Bulletin therein. The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.amex.com* , the principal offices of the Amex, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584 5 to delete the reference to the Weekly Bulletin therein. Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584 requires that all information filed with the Exchange pursuant to Rule 584 be made public in the lists of the meetings of stockholders in the Weekly Bulletin. 5 Amex Rule 584 specifies requirements for members and member organizations regarding proxy contests involving unregistered companies. The Weekly Bulletin, published by the Exchange, currently contains information on the seat market, admission of members, listings and stockholder meetings. In deleting the reference to the Weekly Bulletin in Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584, the Exchange seeks the flexibility of posting the Weekly Bulletin and/or the information contained therein on the AmexTrader Web site ( *http://www.amextrader.com* ) for a wider circulation. 6 6 In the instance that a person does not have access to the Internet, the list of meetings of stockholders will be made available upon request. The Commission previously approved an Exchange proposal to delete references in Amex's Constitution and Rules to the requirement that membership, corporate governance, stockholder meetings and disciplinary information be published in the Weekly Bulletin. 7 However, Commentary .10 to Amex Rule 584 still contains a reference to the Weekly Bulletin. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to the Weekly Bulletin in Commentary .10 of Amex Rule 584 in order to harmonize this rule with the remainder of Amex's Constitution and Rules. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41840 (Sept. 7, 1999), 64 FR 50128 (Sept. 15, 1999) (SR-Amex-99-31). The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will engender any controversy as the information contained in the Weekly Bulletin will continue to be available to its existing constituency and will be made available to the general public through the AmexTrader Web site. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Amex has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, as required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 10 the Amex provided the Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission. Therefore, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Amex has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission hereby grants the Amex's request 13 and believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that it previously approved an Exchange proposal to delete references in the Amex's Constitution and Rules to the requirement that membership, corporate governance, stockholder meetings and disciplinary information be published in the Weekly Bulletin 14 and that the proposed amendment conforms the language in Commentary .10 of Amex Rule 584 with the remainder of the Exchange's Constitution and Rules by deleting the reference to the Weekly Bulletin. In addition, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative period would enable the Exchange to implement the proposal as quickly as possible, and thereby provide for greater uniformity among the Amex's Constitution and Rules. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing with the Commission. 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 *See* note 7, *supra* . At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-134 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-134. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).* Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-134 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24693 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56959; File No. SR-Amex-2007-46] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Require Specialists To Yield Orally Agreed Upon Proprietary Trades to Later-Arriving Customer System Orders December 13, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on May 10, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On December 4, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 950-ANTE to require specialists to yield proprietary transactions in options to later arriving off-Floor customer system agency orders that enter and are displayed on the specialist's Book (“Agency Orders”) and could take the specialist's place in the proprietary transaction. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Amex states that ANTE Public Orders Ahead Block (“Block”) is the functionality designed to assist specialists in complying with their agency obligations, and prevents specialists from trading ahead of a public customer order in violation of the priority rules, unless the trade is marked as meeting one of the proposed specified exceptions in the Exchange's rules. The Amex is proposing to add new Commentary .04 to Amex Rule 950-ANTE
(l)to codify these exceptions to the requirement that options specialists yield proprietary transactions to later arriving Agency Orders that enter and are displayed on the options specialist's Book and could take the options specialist's place in the not yet reported proprietary transaction. Exchange rules require specialists to always yield to customer orders on the Book when trading in their specialty securities for their dealer account. When no other interest is present on the specialists' Book, specialists may trade for their own account with interest represented on the Book or in the trading crowd. 3 3 *See* Amex Rule 150(b), Rule 155 and Rule 170 generally made applicable to options by Rule 950-ANTE
(a)and (l). The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .04 to paragraph
(l)of 950-ANTE to specify certain limited exceptions when options specialists are not required to yield to customers orders on the Book when trading for their own account. These exceptions are as follows:
(i)If the later arriving order is an off-Floor system order for the account of a broker-dealer (including, but not limited to, a foreign broker-dealer, Registered Options Trader, Supplemental Registered Options Trader, Remote Registered Options Trader, or Away Market Maker); 4 4 Pursuant to 900-ANTE (b)(48), an “Away Market Maker” is a market maker, as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Act, in options registered as such on such other national securities exchange.
(ii)If the specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is a trade effected pursuant to Rule 950-ANTE (d), Commentary .01 or Commentary .07(b);
(iii)If the specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is a report of principal participation on an order sent to another market center through Options Intermarket Linkage and the system order arrived after the specialist sent the Linkage order;
(iv)If the specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is in connection with a P/A order sent to another market center through the Options Intermarket Linkage; or
(v)If the specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is a correction of a bona fide specialist error. These exceptions are discussed in more detail below: Priority Over Accounts of Broker-Dealers Because, pursuant to Amex Rule 950-ANTE, orders for the accounts of broker-dealers do not have priority over specialists acting as principal, the Block allows for the specialist not to yield to such orders. Complex or Combination Trade Priority Specialist participation in a transaction effected pursuant to Rule 950-ANTE (d), Commentary .01 or Commentary .07(b) is not subject to the requirement to yield, consistent with the limited priority exceptions that already exists for certain transactions, such as those involving complex or combination orders. 5 5 The priority exception requires the specialist to improve the market on one “leg” of the complex trade, which must be marked as a “spread” transaction. The specialist will not be required to yield to Agency Orders if the specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is:
(1)A complex trade such as a spread, straddle, ratio, or combination transaction pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule 950-ANTE (d); or
(2)if the specialist is participating in a “split price priority” transaction, or a pair of purchase or sale priority transactions. When a specialist participates in a trade with a broker or market maker that constitutes a complex trade (spread, straddle, etc.), the specialist must enter the execution into the trading system (ANTE). Whenever the specialist participates in a transaction in ANTE where he enters his interest and it is on the same side of a customer order at the same price level, the quantity going to the specialist is automatically swapped with that requested by the customer order. In the case where the transaction is a spread trade, the specialist can click a button labeled “spread” to indicate the trade is a spread trade, and the system will not automatically swap the quantity allocated to the specialist with that of the customer thereby allowing the specialist to receive the execution. For example: —A Floor Broker walks into the crowd with a spread trade request. 1. Buy 10 Intel Jan 25 calls at $5 (Amex quote = 4.90 x 5). 2. Sell 10 Intel Jan 25 puts at $1 (Amex quote = 0.95 x 1.05). —There is a customer order to sell 10 contracts at $5, which could be an existing order or one that comes in after the Floor Broker enters the crowd. The specialist executes the spread trade buying 10 Jan 25 puts @ 1 and selling 10 Jan. 25 calls @ 5. The specialist enters the transaction into the trading system and indicates the trade is a spread trade by clicking the spread button. In the foregoing, when entering the transaction into the system, if the specialist does not click the “spread” button, the 10 contracts allocated to him at $5 will be swapped with the customer order. However, in the above example, because the specialist indicates the spread transaction by clicking “spread”, the quantity is allocated to the specialist and not to the customer. The processing for split price priority is the same as that for complex trades. 6 If the specialist indicates both executions are split price executions by clicking the “spread” button, the trading system will allow the transaction to process ahead of any customer orders on the book. 7 For example: 6 Pursuant to Commentary .07(b) to Amex Rule 950-ANTE (d), this exception applies to orders of 100 contracts or more. 7 The Exchange states that when a specialist marks a trade as “spread”, it is reported to the tape as a spread transaction although the trade may not necessarily be a spread trade. FINRA conducts surveillance to monitor whether specialists are inappropriately marking trades as spread, when the trade does not qualify for such treatment pursuant to Amex Rule 950-ANTE (d), Commentaries .01 or .07(b). —Floor Broker walks into the crowd with an order to buy 100 @ $5 or, an order comes into the system to buy 100 @ $5. 1. Amex quote = 4.80 × 5. 2. There is a customer order to sell 10 at $5. —The specialist executes the buy order 50 @ $4.90 (this price is better than the ABBO and customer orders price) and 50 @ $5, against the specialist account or he enters a trade for the specialist account to match against the Brokers order—50 @ $4.90 and 50 @ $5. When the specialist enters the transaction into the trading system, he or she can indicate the split price trade by clicking the “spread” button just as he or she does for the execution of complex trades. By doing so, the system allows the quantity allocated to the specialist to remain with the specialist. As noted above, if the specialist does not click on the “spread” button, then 10 of the 50 contracts allocated to the specialist will be allocated to the customer instead. Certain Linkage Transactions The Block will not be triggered if:
(1)The specialist's trade for his or her dealer account is a report of principal participation on an order sent to another market center through Options Intermarket Linkage prior to the time the Agency Order was displayed on the Book; 8 or 8 The Block will be triggered if an eligible Agency Order is displayed on the Book at the time the specialist attempts to send a principal order to another market.
(2)The transaction is in connection with a P/A order sent to another market center through the Options Intermarket Linkage. A specialist who participates as principal on an order sent to another market center through Options Intermarket Linkage is not required to yield to an Agency Order that arrives subsequent to the time the specialist sent a principal linkage commitment, but prior to receiving a report of execution back. In this case, the specialist has time priority to the Agency Order since the proprietary trade has already taken place. Furthermore, a specialist is not required to yield to an Agency Order where a specialist is obligated to trade with an order on the book on the basis of receiving an execution report of a “P/A” order (as defined in Amex Rule 940(b)(10)(i)), sent to another market center through Options Intermarket Linkage. Under applicable linkage rules, this trade was done expressly on behalf of a customer order, and the specialist must relinquish the position to the customer upon receiving the execution report. 9 The exception ensures that the specialist maintains this obligation. 9 *See* Amex Rule 941(b). Correction of a Bona Fide Error Specialist options errors are processed outside of the ANTE trading system by Exchange staff through Exchange error corrections facilities. In circumstances in which a specialist must correct a *bona fide* error, if the correction involves principal participation and an Agency Order is present on the Book at the time of the correction, there is no requirement that the specialist yield to later arriving customer Agency Orders. All errors are appropriately documented and reported to the Exchange, by the Service Desk, in a manner designated by the Exchange. Although ANTE has systematized the functionality required by the proposed exceptions codified in proposed Commentary .04 to Amex 950-ANTE (l), the Exchange wishes to advise that there is an inherent limitation in fully systematizing this functionality. The ANTE trading system combines the electronic routing, quoting, and execution of options orders with on floor auction market trading in options. In this regard, specialists can and will be involved in orally consummated orders. Often these “crowd trades” involve a number of registered options traders as contra-parties to the transaction together with the specialist. To enable timely trade reporting, the specialist may report a crowd transaction without all of the names of the contra-parties reflected, and shortly thereafter submit an Action without an Order (known as an “AWO”) to provide the names of all counter-parties to the trade. If the specialist is a party to the trade, his participation must be reported on either the trade report or the AWO. The trading ahead block will replace his participation if a later arriving off-floor customer agency order is entitled to participate in the specialist's place. However, it is theoretically possible that if there was a customer agency order on the specialist book at the time of the trade report that was cancelled prior to the AWO, the trading ahead block would not be able to replace the specialist's participation with the customer. Similarly though, a customer order could be entered subsequent to the trade report but prior to the AWO, and in such a situation the specialist's participation will be replaced. Because the specialist has the ability to delay reporting his participation in a transaction there is of course the potential that a specialist may inappropriately use this ability to avoid being replaced by a customer order. While the Exchange acknowledges that this type of inappropriate action could happen, a specialist delaying the reporting of his participation to avoid being replaced by a customer order runs the risk that the customer order does not cancel or otherwise get executed, or the risk that additional customer orders arrive that could also replace the specialist's participation. However, FINRA conducts routine surveillance to identify situations in which a specialist traded ahead of an order by the use of an AWO to report his participation after the reporting of a transaction. The Exchange states that to date, this surveillance indicates that specialists generally report their proprietary participation at the time of the trade report, rather than through a later AWO. Moreover, even when a later AWO is used, FINRA has only identified two possibly valid trading ahead alerts, which are currently under review. To the extent violative conduct is found to have occurred, the Amex will take appropriate disciplinary action against the specialist in question. The Exchange notes that the foregoing amendment to Commentary .04 to 950-ANTE(l) shall remain applicable until the Amex Book Clerk (“ABC”) program has been fully implemented. 10 The ABC program eliminates the obligation and ability of Exchange options specialists to execute orders as agent in his or her assigned options classes. Rather, an Exchange employee or independent contractor, the ABC shall be responsible for maintaining and operating the customer limit order book and display book. The Amex anticipates a six month rollout period of ABC program. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56804 (November 16, 2007), 72 FR 66002 (November 26, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-107). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 11 in general and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is designed to prohibit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. Specifically, the Exchange believes that conforming the Exchange's rule text to the ANTE Public Orders Ahead Block functionality is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and would sooner afford market participants the benefits that should flow from the proposal. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange states that no written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-46 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-46. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-46 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2008. IV. Commission Findings and Accelerated Approval After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 13 and, in particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act. 14 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 15 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because the proposed rule change modifies the Exchange's ANTE system to systematically prevent a specialist from trading ahead of public customer orders except in those limited circumstances that are enumerated in the proposed rule. 13 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f. 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 16 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** as the proposal does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, and does not impose any significant burden on competition. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change codifies the system changes made in response to certain undertakings made by the Amex. 17 Moreover, the Commission believes that granting accelerated approval to this proposed rule change will allow these changes to be effective without delay and to remain in effect during the transition to the ABC program. 18 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 17 *See* Securities Exchange Release No. 55507 (March 22, 2007). 18 *See supra* note 10 and accompanying text. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 19 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-46), as amended, be, and is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24726 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56969; File No. SR-Amex-2007-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, and Notice of Amendment No. 3 to the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the GreenHaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund December 14, 2007. On May 29, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 2 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the GreenHaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund (“Fund”) pursuant to Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 1202. On July 31, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, and on November 16, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 for a 15-day comment period. 3 The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the proposal. On December 13, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 4 This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereto, on an accelerated basis. Simultaneously, the Commission is providing notice of and soliciting comments from interested persons regarding Amendment No. 3. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56802 (November 16, 2007), 72 FR 65994 (“Notice”). 4 Amendment No. 3 would amend the proposed rule change by:
(a)Clarifying that only Reuters determines the composition of the Index (defined *infra* ), and stating that Reuters:
(i)considers information about changes to the Index and related matters to be potentially market-moving, material, and confidential; and
(ii)has policies and procedures in place to ensure to prevent the use and dissemination of such information;
(b)stating that the Web sites for the Fund and/or the Exchange will disseminate information the information discussed *infra* (including the composition of the portfolio of the Fund) to everyone at the same time;
(c)adding information concerning halting of trading in the Shares;
(d)adding information about applicable existing rules that would govern specialists' potential conflicts of interest; and
(e)stating that the Information Circular (described *infra* ) would discuss the regulatory jurisdiction over the physical trading of commodities or the futures contracts on which the value of the Shares is based, and that there is no regulated source of last sale information regarding physical commodities. The text of Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange, and at *http://www.amex.com* . I. Description As described in the Exchange's proposal, 5 the Fund's primary investment objective is to reflect the performance of the Continuous Commodity Total Return Index (the “Index” or “CCI-TR”), over time, less the expenses of the operations of the Fund and the Master Fund. The Master Fund will invest in a portfolio of exchange-traded futures (“Commodity Futures Contracts”) on the commodities comprising the Index. 6 5 Substantially all of the assets of the Fund will be invested in the Master Fund. For a more detailed description of the Fund and Master Fund, including their structure, holdings, applicable exchange listing and trading rules, disclosure of pricing information, surveillance, and other regulation, *see* Notice at 65997-66001. Terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as the meaning given in the Notice. 6 For information regarding the Commodity Futures Contracts, *see* Notice at 65996-65997. GreenHaven Commodity Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, will serve as Managing Owner of the Fund and the Master Fund. The Managing Owner will serve as the commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor of the Fund and the Master Fund. The Managing Owner is registered as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and with the National Futures Association (“NFA”). 7 7 As a registered commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor with respect to both the Fund and the Master Fund, the Managing Owner is required to comply with various regulatory requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and regulations of the CFTC and the NFA, including investor protection requirements, antifraud prohibitions, disclosure requirements, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. II. Commission Findings and Accelerated Approval After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 10 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. The Exchange represents that futures contract quotes and last sale information for the Commodity Futures Contracts are widely disseminated through a variety of market data vendors worldwide, including Bloomberg and Reuters. In addition, the Exchange further represents that complete real-time data for the Commodity Futures Contracts is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The relevant futures exchanges also provide delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on their respective Web sites. The specific contract specifications for each Commodity Futures Contract are also available from the various futures exchanges on their Web sites as well as other financial informational sources. Further, the Web sites for the Fund and/or the Exchange, which are publicly accessible at no charge, will disseminate the following information to everyone at the same time:
(a)The current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV per Share and the reported closing price;
(b)the mid-point of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV per Share as of the time it is calculated (the “Bid-Ask Price”);
(c)calculation of the premium or discount of such price against the NAV per Share;
(d)data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV per Share, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters;
(e)the Prospectus;
(f)the composition of the portfolio of the Fund; and
(g)other applicable quantitative information. 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). The Commission believes that the proposal to list and trade Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain from the Fund, prior to listing the Shares, a representation that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, as mentioned above, the Exchange represents that the Web site disclosure of the portfolio composition of the Fund will be made to all market participants at the same time. Moreover, the Exchange states that:
(1)Only Reuters determines the composition of the Index; and
(2)Reuters
(a)considers information about changes to the Index and related matters to be potentially market-moving, material, and confidential, and
(b)has policies and procedures in place to ensure to prevent the use and dissemination of such information. Further, the trading of the Shares would subject to certain conflict of interest provisions set forth in Commentary .07(e) to Amex Rule 1202. 11 Additionally, Commentary .07(g)(3) to Amex Rule 1202 prohibits the specialist in the Shares from using any material nonpublic information received from any person associated with a member, member organization or employee of such person regarding trading by such person or employee in the Index commodities, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. 11 Specifically, Commentary .07(e) provides that the prohibitions in Rule 175(c) apply to a specialist in the Shares so that the specialist or affiliated person may not act or function as a market maker in an underlying asset, related futures contract or option or any other related derivative. An affiliated person of the specialist consistent with Rule 193 may be afforded an exemption to act in a market making capacity, other than as a specialist in the Shares on another market center, in the underlying asset, related futures or options or any other related derivative. Commentary .07(e) further provides that an approved person of an equity specialist that has established and obtained Exchange approval for procedures restricting the flow of material, non-public market information between itself and the specialist member organization, and any member, officer, or employee associated therewith, may act in a market making capacity, other than as a specialist in the Shares on another market center, in the underlying asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .07(e) to Rule 1202 also ensures that specialists handling the Shares provide the Exchange with all the necessary information relating to their trading in physical assets or commodities, related futures contracts and options thereon or any other derivative. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably designed to prevent trading in the Shares when transparency is impaired. The Exchange states that trading in the Shares will be halted in the event the market volatility halt parameters set forth in Amex Rule 117 have been reached. The Exchange also states that it will halt trading in the Shares if trading in the Commodity Futures Contracts is halted or suspended. Additionally, if the value of the Index or the Indicative Fund Value is not being disseminated on at least a 15-second basis during the hours the Shares trade on the Exchange, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the value of the Index or the Indicative Fund Value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination the value of the Index or the Indicative Fund Value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. Further, with respect to a halt in trading that is not specified above, the Exchange may consider other relevant factors and the existence of unusual conditions or circumstances that may be detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The Commission further believes that the trading rules and procedures to which the Shares will be subject pursuant to this proposal are consistent with the Act. The Exchange has represented that the Shares are equity securities subject to Amex's rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
(1)The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares. Specifically, Amex will rely on its existing surveillance procedures governing Trust Issued Receipts, Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares. The Exchange states that it currently has in place comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements with the InterContinental Exchange, the London Metals Exchange, and the New York Mercantile Exchange for the purpose of providing information in connection with trading in or related to futures contracts traded on their respective exchanges comprising the Indexes. The Exchange also notes that the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and New York Board Of Trade are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group. As a result, the Exchange asserts that market surveillance information is available from relevant futures exchanges, if necessary, due to regulatory concerns that may arise in connection with the Commodity Futures Contracts.
(2)Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members and member organizations in an Information Circular regarding the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Shares. The Information Circular also will highlight the special risks and characteristics of the Fund and Shares, as well as applicable Exchange rules. In addition, the Information Circular will also reference the fact that there is no regulated source of last sale information regarding physical commodities and discuss the relevant regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of physical commodities or the futures contracts on which the value of the Shares is based. This approval order is based on the Exchange's representations. The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . Amendment No. 3 made only minor changes to the overall proposal, which was subject to a 15-day comment period. 13 The Commission notes that the present proposal, as amended, is similar to prior proposals that the Commission has approved, 14 and is consistent with current Amex listing requirements. The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, raises any novel regulatory issues. Consequently, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to permit investors to benefit from these additional investment choices without delay. Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is good cause, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 15 to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, on an accelerated basis. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 13 As mentioned above, the Commission did not receive any comments regarding the proposed rule change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 following publication in the **Federal Register** . 14 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55632 (April 13, 2007), 72 FR 19987 (April 20, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-112) (approving the listing and trading of the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53582 (March 31, 2006), 71 FR 17510 (April 6, 2006) (SR-Amex 2005-127) (approving the listing and trading of the United States Oil Fund, LP); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53105 (January 11, 2006), 71 FR 3129 (January 19, 2006) (SR-Amex 2005-059) (approving the listing and trading of the DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether it is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-53 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-53. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-53 and should be submitted on or before January 4, 2008. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 16 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-53), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24729 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56948; File No. SR-BSE-2007-52] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges December 12, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 30, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The BSE is proposing to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”). The proposed amendment will remove the Minimum Activity Charge (“MAC”) from the Fee Schedule of the BOX. The proposed amendment also will increase the number of options classes that will participate in the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure (“Make or Take”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at BSE's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.bostonstock.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose BOX currently charges its Market Making Participants a monthly fixed fee for each option class in which the Participant is assigned, known as the MAC. MAC fee levels are determined according to certain “categories” of options classes listed on BOX. The category for each class is determined by its total trading volume across all U.S. options exchanges as determined by Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) data. BOX is proposing to eliminate the MAC so Market Makers will only be charged fees for contracts which are traded. Such fees will be determined on a “Per Contract Execution” basis rather than by setting minimum fee levels that Market Making Participants must incur each month, regardless of the level of their trading activity. Additionally, BOX currently applies an alternative pricing structure for certain options classes, referred to as Make or Take. Make or Take is currently applicable only to options classes participating in the Penny Pilot, 5 as referenced in Chapter V, section 33 of the BOX Trading Rules. Make or Take pricing is driven by liquidity, whereby orders that add liquidity to the BOX Book receive a transaction credit and orders which take liquidity from the BOX Book are charged a transaction fee. The proposed amendment will increase the number of classes for which the Make or Take pricing structure will be applicable. The proposed classes being added to Make or Take are the twenty-five
(25)most actively-traded, multiply-listed options classes on BOX which are presently not included in the Penny Pilot. 5 The “Original Penny Pilot Program Approval Order” listed the initial thirteen options classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54789 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 68654 (November 27, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-49). On September 27, 2007, the Commission approved an extension and expansion of the Penny Pilot Program to include fifty additional classes, in two phases. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56566 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56400 (October 3, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-40). Phase One began on September 28, 2007 and will continue for six months, until March 27, 2008. Phase One added twenty-two options classes to the Penny Pilot. Phase Two is scheduled to begin on March 28, 2008, and will continue for one year until March 27, 2009. During the second phase, the number of options classes trading in pennies will again increase. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 in particular, which requires that an exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 9 because it establishes or changes a fee applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-BSE-2007-52 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-52. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).* Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-52 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24724 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56970; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-99] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to a Delta Hedging Exemption From Equity Options Position Limits December 14, 2007. On August 21, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to create a delta hedging exemption from equity options position limits. On October 4, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission published the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 15, 2007. 3 On October 24, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56631 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58341. 4 In Amendment No. 2, CBOE made a technical revision to the proposal. This is a technical amendment and is not subject to notice and comment. In Amendment No. 2, CBOE noted that the effective date of the proposal will be February 1, 2008, or such later date as may be necessary to ensure completion of the required technology changes by the Options Clearing Corporation and the Securities Industry Automation Corporation. Under the proposal, the Exchange would provide an exemption from equity options 5 position and exercise limits 6 for positions held by CBOE members and certain non-member affiliates 7 that are “delta neutral” 8 under a “permitted pricing model.” 9 The options contract equivalent of the net delta 10 of a hedged options position still would be subject to the position limits in Rule 4.11 (subject to the availability of any other position limit exemptions). 11 A member that intends to employ, or whose non-member affiliate intends to employ, this exemption would be required to provide a written certification to CBOE stating that the member and/or its affiliate will use a permitted pricing model. 12 In addition, members that carry an account that includes an equity option position for a non-member affiliate would be required to obtain a written statement from the non-member affiliate confirming that the affiliate:
(1)Is relying on this exemption;
(2)will use only a permitted pricing model for purposes of calculating the net delta of its option positions for purposes of this exemption;
(3)will promptly notify the member if it ceases to rely on this exemption;
(4)authorizes the member, upon request, to provide to the Exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation such information regarding positions of the non-member affiliate as part of the Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of the net delta calculation under this exemption; and
(5)if the non-member affiliate is using the Options Clearing Corporation model, has duly executed and delivered to the Exchange such documents as the Exchange may require as a condition to reliance on this exemption. 13 5 Equity options for purposes of this proposed rule change includes stock options and options on exchange-traded funds. 6 CBOE Rule 4.12 establishes exercise limits for an option at the same level as the option's position limit under Rule 4.11. Therefore, no changes are proposed to Rule 4.12. 7 The Commission notes that only those non-member affiliates identified in the definition of “permitted pricing model” would be eligible to rely on the delta hedging exemption. *See infra* note 9. 8 The term “delta neutral” would be defined in proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(A) as referring to an equity option position that is hedged, in accordance with a permitted pricing model, by a position in the underlying security or one or more instruments relating to the underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting the risk that the value of the option position will change with incremental changes in the price of the security underlying the option position. 9 “Permitted pricing model” for purposes of this exemption would be a pricing model used by:
(1)A member or its non-member affiliate, using a pricing model maintained and operated by the Options Clearing Corporation;
(2)a member or its non-member affiliate subject to consolidated supervision by the Commission pursuant to Appendix E of Rule 15c3-1 under the Act ( *i.e.* , a consolidated supervised entity or “CSE”);
(3)a financial holding company (“FHC”) or a company treated as an FHC under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or its affiliate subject to consolidated holding company group supervision;
(4)a Commission registered OTC derivatives dealer; and
(5)a national bank under the National Bank Act. *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(C). 10 “Net delta” would be defined to mean, at any time, the number of shares (either long or short) required to offset the risk that the value of an equity option position will change with incremental changes in the price of the security underlying the option position. *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(B). “Options contract equivalent of the net delta” would be defined to mean the net delta divided by the number of shares underlying the options contract. *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(B). 11 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(B). The Commission notes that Rule 4.11.04 provides for multiple, independent hedge exemptions. Of course, to the extent that a position is used to hedge for the purpose of one exemption from position limit requirements, such as the delta hedge exemption, such position cannot be used to take advantage of another exemption from position limit requirements. 12 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(E)(1) and (E)(3)(i) 13 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(E)(3)(ii). Furthermore, any member would be required to report, in accordance with Rule 4.13, all equity options positions (including those that are delta neutral) that are reportable under that rule, and also would be required to report on its own behalf or on behalf of a designated aggregation unit 14 the net delta and options contract equivalent of the net delta of such positions for each account that holds an equity option position subject to the delta hedging exemption in excess of the levels specified in Rule 4.11. 15 Each member relying on the exemption would be required to retain, and undertake reasonable efforts to ensure that its non-member affiliates relying on the exemption retain, a list of the options, securities, and other instruments underlying each option position net delta calculation reported to the Exchange; and to produce such information to the Exchange upon request. 16 In addition, the options positions of a non-member relying on the exemption would be required to be carried by a member with which it is affiliated. 17 14 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(D), which provides, under certain conditions, that the net delta of an options position held by an entity entitled to rely on the exemption could be calculated without regard to positions in or relating to the security underlying the option position held by an affiliated entity or another trading unit within the same entity, provided that, among other things, no control relationship exists between such affiliates or trading units and the entity has designated in writing in advance the affiliates or trading units that are to be considered separate and distinct from each other. 15 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(F). 16 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(G). 17 *See* proposed Rule 4.11.04(c)(E)(2). The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange. 18 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 19 which requires, among other things, that CBOE rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission has previously stated its support for recognizing options positions hedged on a delta neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits. 20 *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 21 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-99), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved. 18 In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 20 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23, 1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (File No. S7-30-97) (adopting rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers). The Commission notes that it recently approved a proposal by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.) to expand the class of entities permitted to use the delta hedging exemption from equity options position limits. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56916 (December 6, 2007), 72 FR 70627 (December 12, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-044). 21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24723 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56960; File No. SR-ISE-2007-118] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fee Changes December 13, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 11, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to reflect the addition of six new Premium Products. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange, and on its Web site at *http://www.ise.com* . 5 “Premium Products” is defined in the Schedule of Fees as options on the products enumerated therein. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to reflect the addition of options on the following new products: the ProShares UltraShort QQQ Fund® (“QID”), ProShares Ultra QQQ Fund® (“QLD”), 6 ProShares UltraShort S&P500® Fund (“SDS”), ProShares Ultra S&P500® Fund (“SSO”), 7 ProShares UtraShort Russell2000 Fund (“TWM”) and ProShares Ultra Russell2000 Fund (“UWM”). 8 The Exchange represents that QID, QLD, SDS, SSO, TWM and UWM are eligible for options trading because they constitute “Exchange-Traded Fund Shares,” as defined by ISE Rule 502(h). 6 “NASDAQ-100 Index” is a trademark of the NASDAQ Stock Markets, Inc. (“NASDAQ”) and has been licensed for use by ProShares in connection with the listing and trading of the QLD and the QID on the American Stock Exchange. QLD and QID are not sponsored, sold or endorsed by NASDAQ, and NASDAQ makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in QLD and QID. NASDAQ and ProShares have not licensed or authorized ISE to:
(1)*Engage* in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on QLD and QID; or
(2)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on QLD and QID or with making disclosures concerning options on QLD and QID under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. NASDAQ and ProShares do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. 7 “Standard & Poor's®,” “S&P®,” “S&P 500®,” “Standard & Poor's 500®,” “Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts®,” and “SPDR®” are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”), and have been licensed for use by ProShares in connection with the listing and trading of the SSO and the SDS on the American Stock Exchange. SSO and SDS are not sponsored, sold or endorsed by Standard & Poor's (“S&P”), a division of McGraw-Hill, and S&P makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in SSO and SDS. McGraw-Hill, S&P and ProShares have not licensed or authorized ISE to:
(1)*Engage* in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on SSO and SDS; or
(2)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on SSO and SDS or with making disclosures concerning options on SSO and SDS under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. McGraw-Hill, S&P and ProShares do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. 8 “Russell 2000® Index” is a trademark of Frank Russell Company (“Russell”) and has been licensed for use ProShares in connection with the listing and trading of the UWM and TWM on the American Stock Exchange. UWM and TWM are not sponsored, sold or endorsed by Russell, and Russell makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in UWM and TWM. Russell and ProShares have not licensed or authorized ISE to:
(1)*Engage* in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on UWM and TWM; or
(2)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on UWM and TWM or with making disclosures concerning options on UWM and TWM under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Russell and ProShares do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. Specifically, the Exchange will charge an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on QID, QLD, SDS, SSO, TWM and UWM. 9 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 10 and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options. 11 Finally, the amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.37 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. 12 Further, since options on QID, QLD, SDS, SSO, TWM and UWM are multiply-listed, the Payment for Order Flow fee shall apply to these products. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. 9 These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2008, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule 1900). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128 (July 24, 2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-55). 10 Public Customer Order is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(38) as a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 11 The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side. 12 The amount of the execution and comparison fee for non-ISE Market Maker transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms is $0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 14 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 16 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal took effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-ISE-2007-118 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-118. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-118 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-24727 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56946, File No. SR-MSRB-2007-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to Rule G-40 on E-Mail Contacts December 12, 2007. On October 16, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change consisting of amendments to Rule G-40, on electronic mail contacts, that would more fully conform MSRB requirements to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) requirements relating to contact information. The MSRB proposed an effective date for this proposed rule change of December 31, 2007 to coincide with the effective date of recently-approved FINRA requirements. 3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56179 (August 1, 2007), 72 FR 44203 (August 7, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-034). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56736 (November 2, 2007), 72 FR 63633 (November 9, 2007) (“Commission's Notice”). The proposed amendments to Rule G-40 would require dealers to:
(i)Promptly update any change in the required information for their primary contact but not later than 30 days following such change;
(ii)review and, if necessary, update required information on their primary contact within 17 business days after the end of each calendar year; and
(iii)promptly comply with any request by the appropriate regulatory agency (as defined in Section 3(a)(34) of the Act) for such information but not later than 15 days following such request, or such longer period that may be agreed to by the appropriate regulatory agency. A full description of the proposal is contained in the Commission's Notice. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB 5 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among other things, that the MSRB's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because substantially conforming Rule G-40 to comparable FINRA requirements relating to e-mail contact information will promote regulatory consistency by facilitating dealer compliance with such requirements, as well as the inspection and enforcement thereof. The proposal will be effective December 31, 2007, as requested by the MSRB. 5 In approving this rule the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). 7 *Id* . *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2007-04) be, and it hereby is, approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24652 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56958; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-99] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to Rule 104 (Dealings by Specialists) December 13, 2007. I. Introduction On November 9, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 104 to allow the specialist's algorithm systems to generate trading messages that provide supplemental specialist volume to partially or completely fill an order at a sweep price. The Exchange filed and withdrew Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on October 24, 2007 and October 29, 2007, respectively. The Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 on October 29, 2007 and November 5, 2007, respectively. The proposed rule change was published for public comment in the **Federal Register** on November 13, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56747 (November 5, 2007), 72 FR 63946 (“Notice”). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change Currently, Rule 104(b)(i)(F) permits the specialist proprietary algorithm (“Specialist Algorithm”) to generate a trading message to provide supplemental specialist volume at the Exchange published best bid or offer (“BBO”). This trading message enables specialists, through the use of their algorithms, to provide more volume where, technically, there is no other interest available to trade with the customer order. The Exchange seeks to further provide its customers with additional opportunities for a better priced execution by amending Rule 104(b)(i)(F) to allow the specialist to also partially or completely fill an order beyond the Exchange published best bid or offer at a sweep price. 4 The Specialist Algorithm will generate this trading message in reaction to one order at a time and only as that order is entering Exchange systems. Additionally, this trading message will only be able to interact with the targeted order to add volume at one place, either at the Exchange best bid or offer or at a particular sweep price. In other words, the specialist will not have two opportunities to provide supplemental specialist volume to the incoming order at the Exchange best bid or offer and also at a particular price point should the order sweep the Display Book. There will be no change with respect to priority and parity. The specialist's algorithm will make a determination about where and how much supplemental specialist volume to provide based on the state of the book information when the order is received by Exchange systems. 4 The instant filing was initially filed with the Commission on November 9, 2006. In the notice, the Exchange stated that the proposed functionality inadvertently became operational in Exchange systems without Commission approval on or about January 24, 2007. The proposed rule change, as amended, is intended to codify the current Exchange system functionality. *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, at note 6. The specialist would not be required to buy the full size remaining of the sell order at the particular sweep price. The Exchange states that there is no disadvantage to the customer in allowing the specialists to partially fill an order at a particular sweep price especially when applicable rules only allow the supplemental specialist volume to interact with the order when no other interest exists. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act 5 which requires an Exchange to have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal should benefit investors and the public interest by enabling customers to receive better priced executions than they otherwise would have received. Additionally, when specialists choose, through their algorithms, to partially or completely fill orders beyond the Exchange BBO, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its systems would not permit a trading message to provide supplemental specialist volume that would trade-through a protected quotation in violation of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Act. 7 The Commission also notes that the supplemental specialist volume would yield to displayed and reserve interest ( *i.e.* , customer limit orders, Floor broker agency interest and specialist interest). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 17 CFR 242.611. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2006-99), as amended, is approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24725 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56968; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to NYSE Rule 92 and Riskless Principal Trading at the Exchange December 14, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 11, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend the operative date of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3) from January 16, 2008 to May 14, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to extend the delayed operative date of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3) from January 16, 2008 to May 14, 2008. On July 5, 2007, the Commission approved amendments to NYSE Rule 92 to permit riskless principal trading at the Exchange. 5 In connection with those amendments, the Exchange implemented NYSE Rule 92(c)(3), which requires members to submit to a designated Exchange database a report of the execution of the facilitated order. That rule also requires members to submit to that same database sufficient information to provide an electronic link of the execution of the facilitated order to all of the underlying orders. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56017 (July 5, 2007), 72 FR 38110 (July 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-21). For purposes of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3), the Exchange requires that when executing riskless principal transactions, firms must submit order execution reports to the Exchange's Front End Systemic Capture (“FESC”) database linking the execution of the riskless principal order on the Exchange to the specific underlying orders. The information provided must be sufficient for both member firms and the Exchange to reconstruct in a time-sequenced manner all orders, including allocations to the underlying orders, with respect to which a member organization is claiming the riskless principal exception. Because the rule change required member organizations to make certain changes to their trading and order management systems, the Commission approved a delay to January 16, 2008 of the operative date of the NYSE Rule 92(c)(3) requirements, including submitting end-of-day allocation reports for riskless principal transactions and using the riskless principal account type indicator. The Exchange has been working diligently to develop its FESC database to accept riskless principal order types and the underlying batch orders. On October 12, 2007, the Exchange published an Information Memo that provided member organizations with information relating to the FESC technology interface and data requirements for riskless principal trading at the Exchange. The development of the systems, however, has taken longer than anticipated, which could affect the ability of member organizations to meet the operative date. Several member organizations have informed the Exchange that they need additional time to program their respective systems to meet the new FESC requirements. To accommodate both the Exchange's and the member organization community's need to complete the development of the FESC technology to both accept and route riskless principal orders, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative date for NYSE Rule 92(c)(3) from January 16, 2008 to May 14, 2008. Pending implementation of the FESC database and use of the riskless principal account type indicator, the Exchange will continue to require that, as of the date each member organization implements riskless principal routing, the member organization have in place systems and controls that allow them to easily match and tie the riskless principal execution on the Exchange to the underlying orders and that they be able to provide this information to the Exchange upon request. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5) 6 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 8 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-114 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-114. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-114 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24728 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing. SUMMARY: The U. S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g., intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing. The basis for a waiver is that no small business manufacturers are supplying this class of product to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small business or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATE: This waiver is effective January 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)619-0422; by FAX at
(202)481-1788; or by e-mail at *edith.butler@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act,
(Act)15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The second is the Product and Service Code required as a data entry field by the Federal Procurement Data System. The SBA received a request on October 23, 2007 to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g., intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing. In response, on November 15, 2007, SBA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g, intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing. SBA explained in the notice that it was soliciting comments and sources of small business manufacturers of this class of products. In response to this notice, a comment was received from an interested party, however, no small business manufacturing sources were discovered. SBA has determined that there are no small business manufacturers of this class of products, and is therefore granting the waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g., intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing, NAICS 334510. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17). Dated: December 13, 2007. Arthur E. Collins, Jr., Director, Office of Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E7-24716 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6038] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Color Chart: Reinventing Color” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Color Chart: Reinventing Color”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about March 2, 2008, until on or about May 12, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 13, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-24731 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6037] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Color of Life” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Color of Life”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Villa, Malibu, California, from on or about March 6, 2008, until on or about June 23, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 13, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-24733 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6036] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Treasures from the Holy Land” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “ *Treasures from the Holy Land* ”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California, from on or about February 9, 2008, until on or about August 10, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact *Wolodymyr Sulzynsky* , Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 13, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-24732 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Delegation of Authority No. 307] Delegation by the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and delegated to me by the Secretary of State in Delegation of Authority 293-1, I hereby delegate the Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities and functions vested in the Director of Foreign Assistance in Delegation of Authority 293-1, as well as all authorities and functions vested in that office in future iterations of that delegation. Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, I may exercise any function or authority delegated by this Delegation. This delegation of authority shall be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: December 8, 2007. Henrietta H. Fore, Director of Foreign Assistance, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-24770 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108] National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of Intent
(NOI)to Form an Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: OST is establishing a National Task Force to develop model contingency plans to deal with lengthy airline on-board ground delays. The Task Force will be composed of individuals appointed by the Secretary of Transportation who represent a cross-section of the diverse agencies, organizations and individuals that represent airlines, airports and consumer groups in the U.S. The Task Force will also ensure that members of the public are able to present their views to it. The purpose of this notice is to invite interested parties, organizations, and individuals, to submit applications to be considered for representation on the Task Force. DATES: Comments and/or applications for membership or nominations for membership on the Task Force must be received on or before January 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC 20590-0001; *Phone* :
(202)366-9342; *Fax* :
(202)366-7152; *E-mail: Livaughn.Chapman@dot.gov* . ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or applications by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://www.regulations.gov* . • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 (between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays). *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. Note that all filings received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report, entitled “Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,” issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency. The Department is taking action to effectuate this recommendation. A. Notice of Intent To Establish a Task Force and Request for Comment In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), an agency of the Federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in the interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless that group is chartered as a Federal advisory committee. The purpose of this notice is to indicate that it is OST's intent to create a Task Force to develop model contingency plans to deal with lengthy airline on-board ground delays. OST has determined that the establishment of this Task Force is necessary and in the public interest. B. Name of Committee National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. C. Purpose and Objective
(1)The Task Force will develop model contingency plans for minimizing the impact of lengthy airline on-board ground delays.
(2)The Task Force will be responsible for reviewing incidents involving long, on-board ground delays and their causes; identifying trends and patterns of such events; and recommending workable solutions for mitigating the on-board consumer impact of extraordinary flight disruptions.
(3)The Task Force will report to the Secretary of Transportation the results of its consideration and a description of model contingency plans it develops.
(4)The Task Force will not exercise program management, regulatory or program guidance responsibilities. It will make no decision directly affecting the programs on which it provides advice. The Task Force will provide a forum for the development, consideration, and communication from a knowledgeable and independent perspective of a strategy for dealing with lengthy on-board ground delays nationwide. D. Balanced Membership Plans The Task Force will be composed of individuals appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. Task Force members will represent a cross-section of the diverse agencies, organizations and individuals that represent airlines, airports and consumer groups in the U.S. This document gives notice to potential participants of the process and affords them the opportunity to request representation on the Task Force. The procedure for requesting such representation is set out below. In addition, we invite comments and suggestions for potential participants. OST is aware that there are many more potential organizations and participants than there are membership positions on the Task Force. It is very important to recognize that interested parties who are not selected for membership on the Task Force can make valuable contributions to the work of the Task Force in several ways. For example, the person or organization could request to be placed on the Task Force mailing list and may submit written comments to the Task Force. Further, any member of the public is welcome to attend Task Force meetings, and, as provided in the FACA, speak to the Task Force. Time will be set aside during meetings for this purpose as appropriate. E. Applications for Membership Each Application for membership or nomination to the Task Force should include:
(1)A brief resume or letter (no more than one page) demonstrating the applicant or nominee's unique qualifications and why they are interested in serving on the Task Force (please note, resumes or letters will be posted on the public docket and therefore should not contain personal information such as date of birth, etc.)
(2)Evidence that the applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the interest(s) the person proposes to represent; and
(3)A written commitment that the applicant or nominee would participate in good faith. Since all comments and/or applications for membership or nominations for membership on the Task Force will be posted on the Public Docket, we encourage you to include only that information you are willing to provide for the public docket and submit your application electronically using the docket number provided on this notice through the Federal Docket Management System found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . F. Duration The Task Force will terminate one year after the date of the filing of the Task Force charter unless prior to that time the charter is terminated or extended in accordance with the FACA. G. Notice of Establishment After evaluating applications and nominations received as a result of this notice, the Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice announcing the establishment and composition of the Task Force. Issued on: December 17, 2007. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation. [FR Doc. E7-24745 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice Before Waiver With Respect to land at Raleigh County Memorial Airport, Beckley, WV AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent of waiver with respect to land. SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release of 16.10 acres of land at the Raleigh County Memorial Airport, Beckley, West Virginia to the Raleigh County Airport Authority and the Raleigh County Commission for the development of an industrial park. There are no impacts to the Airport and the land is not needed for airport development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Fair Market Value of the land will be paid to the Raleigh County Airport and the Raleigh County Commission, and used for Airport purposes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Connie Boley-Lilly, Program Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Beckley Airports District Office, 176 Airport Circle, Room 101, Beaver, West Virginia 25813. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Thomas Cochran, Airport Manager, Raleigh County Memorial Airport at the following address: Thomas Cochran, Airport Manager, Raleigh County Memorial Airport, 176 Airport Circle, Room 105, Beaver, West Virginia 25813. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Boley-Lilly, Program Specialist, Beckley Airport District Office,
(304)252-6216 ext. 125, Fax
(304)253-8028. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 5, 2000, new authorizing legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (April 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) requires that a 30 day public notice must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed on an interest in surplus property. Issued in Beckley, West Virginia on December 7, 2007. Matthew P. DiGiulian, Acting Manager, Beckley Airport District Office, Eastern Region. [FR Doc. 07-6110 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
12 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 36 CFR 1280.94
  • Pub. L. 108-77
  • Pub. L. 108-302
  • Pub. L. 109-53
  • Pub. L. 109-435
  • 120 Stat. 3218
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78S(b)(3)(A)
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • Pub. L. 10-181
  • 114 Stat. 61
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 1256.28
C.F.R.§ 1256.56
C.F.R.§ 1254.86
U.S.C.§ 3805
U.S.C.§ 4031
U.S.C.§ 3691
U.S.C.§ 3621
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite36 CFR 1280.94
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-77
Cites 35 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.