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 · 2008-01-17 · Office of Personnel Management (OPM) · Notices

Notices. Notice

33,979 words·~154 min read·/register/2008/01/17/08-127

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

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for OMB Emergency Clearance and 60 Day Notice for Comment for a New Information Collection Request; Retirement Systems Modernization Defined Benefits Technology Solution
(DBTS)OMB No. 3206-XXXX AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 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)submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for emergency clearance and review for emergency clearance collection for the Defined Benefits Technology Solution
(DBTS)in support of the Retirement Systems Modernization
(RSM)project at OPM. Approval of the DBTS is necessary to ensure timely administration of retirement benefits to both active and retired federal employees and their dependents. This also serves as the 60 Day Notice for full clearance review. Approximately 23,000 active federal employees will gain access to the DBTS starting in February 2008 and will have access to the tool; The subset of annuitants and other members of the public from this initial user group that will be using the tool starting in February can not be determined at the time of this submission however the audience will likely be significantly smaller than the active population. We estimate it will take approximately 20 minutes to complete most of the information collections associated with the DBTS. The majority of information collections for the DBTS are done via the internet using the Your Benefits Resources
(YBR)Web site. The annual estimated burden is 2,733 hours. Comments are particularly invited on: • Whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions on the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; • Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and • Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, OPM PRA and Forms Officer, at
(202)606-8358, Fax
(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include your complete mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal for emergency review should be received within 15 calendar days from the date of this publication. We are requesting OMB to take action within 10 calendar days from the close of this **Federal Register** Notice on the request for emergency review. Comments on this proposal for 60 Day review should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to: Thomas O'Keefe, Retirement Systems Modernization, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 4H30, Washington, DC 20415; and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Howard Weizmann, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-808 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to request a revision to a currently approved collection of information: 3220-0127, Financial Disclosure Statement. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine
(1)the practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Under section 10 of the Railroad Retirement Act and section 2(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the RRB may recover overpayments of annuities, pensions, death benefits, unemployment benefits, and sickness benefits that were made erroneously. An overpayment may be waived if the beneficiary was not at fault in causing the overpayment and recovery would cause financial hardship. The regulations for the recovery and waiver of erroneous payments are contained in 20 CFR 255 and CFR 340. The RRB utilizes Form DR-423, Financial Disclosure Statement, to obtain information about the overpaid beneficiary's income, debts, and expenses if that person indicates that (s)he cannot make restitution for the overpayment. The information is used to determine if the overpayment should be waived as wholly or partially uncollectible. If waiver is denied, the information is used to determine the size and frequency of installment payments. The beneficiary is made aware of the overpayment by letter and is offered a variety of methods for recovery. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may result in a denial of the waiver request. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 61192 on October 29, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Financial Disclosure Statement. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0127. *Form(s) submitted:* DR-423. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or Households. *Abstract:* Under the Railroad Retirement and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Railroad Retirement Board has authority to secure from an overpaid beneficiary a statement of the individual's assets and liabilities if waiver of the overpayment is requested. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes the deletion of items requesting the railroad employee's Social Security Number and their spouse's Social Security Number from Form DR-423. Non-burden impacting formatting and editorial changes are also proposed. The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: *Estimated Completion Time for Form(s):* Completion time for Form DR-423 is estimated at 85 minutes. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 1,200. *Total annual responses:* 1,200. *Total annual reporting hours:* 1,700. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov.* Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-734 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57119; File No. CBOE-2008-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders January 9, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 4, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.42, *Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers,* in order to clarify which option classes overlying the S&P 500 Index and S&P 100 Index are subject to the requirement that bids and offers on complex orders, 5 except for box/roll spreads, be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $0.05 and to provide that the appropriate Exchange Committee may determine to modify the applicable increment on a class-by-class basis. CBOE also proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, *Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,* to make certain clarification changes respecting the applicable minimum increment for complex orders. In addition, CBOE is proposing various non-substantive, typographical changes to the two rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.com/legal* . 5 A “complex order” means a spread, straddle, combination or ratio order as defined in CBOE Rule 6.53, a stock-option order as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(ii), a security future-option order as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(zz), or any other complex order as defined in Rule 6.53C. *See* CBOE Rule 6.42.01. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this filing is to make various changes to the Exchange's rules pertaining to complex orders. First, the Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 6.42. Rule 6.42 establishes the minimum trading increments for options traded on the Exchange. Rule 6.42(1) provides that, subject to Rule 6.42(2), bids and offers shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $.10 unless a different increment is approved by the appropriate Exchange committee for an option contract of a particular series. Rule 6.42(2) provides that bids and offers for all option series quoted below $3.00 a contract shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $.05. Rule 6.42(3) provides that bids and offers for all series of the options classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program 6 will be announced via Regulatory Circular. Rule 6.42(4) provides that bids and offers on complex orders may be expressed in any increment, and the legs of a complex order may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order. Thus, for example, a complex order could be entered at a net debit or credit price of $1.03 even though the standard minimum increment for the individual series is generally $0.05 or $0.10. As an exception to this provision, Rule 6.42(4) also provides that bids and offers on complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index or the S&P 100 Index, except for box/roll spreads, shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $0.05. The Exchange is proposing the following changes: 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release 55154 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4743 (February 1, 2007)(order approving CBOE rule changes related to the Penny Pilot Program, which permits certain option classes to be quoted in pennies on a pilot basis). • As currently worded, the text of Rule 6.42(4) simply refers to the underlying S&P 500 Index and S&P 100 Index, but not to the particular overlying option classes. Although there may be various options classes overlying these indexes, the Exchange only intends for the special increment to apply to certain option classes. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to amend the text of the rule to clarify that the special increments apply only to the European-Style Exercise S&P 500 Index options class (option symbol “SPX”), the American-Style S&P 100 Index options class (option symbol “OEX”), and the European-Style Exercise S&P 100 Index options class (option symbol “XEO”). 7 • To provide more flexibility, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.42(4) to provide that the appropriate Exchange committee may determine on a class-by-class basis whether the special increment provisions will apply. Specifically, the proposed rule change would permit the appropriate Exchange committee to designate the applicable minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders in the SPX, OEX or XEO option class as either
(i)the special $0.05 increment or
(ii)like other options classes, any increment. The proposed rule change also makes clear that, like other complex orders, the legs of SPX, OEX or XEO complex orders may be executed in $0.01 increments. 8 7 The Exchange notes that, when the provision respecting these special increments was originally adopted, it simply applied to options on the S&P 500 Index and that rule change filing referred to those options as “SPX” options. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45731 (April 11, 2002), 67 FR 19464 (April 19, 2002)(SR-CBOE-2001-62). The rule change filing that extended the application of the special increments to options on the S&P 100 Index referred to those options as “OEX” options. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54135 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 41287 (July 20, 2006)(SR-CBOE-2005-65). Through the instant rule change, the Exchange is proposing to clarify that the reference to S&P 100 Index options should also include XEO options, which only differ from the OEX options in exercise style. As with OEX options, the Exchange believes that application of the special increment provisions to XEO options is appropriate given the complexity of XEO orders and the size of the underlying S&P 100 Index. 8 Two other non-substantive formatting changes are also being proposed to the text of Rule 6.42 (specifically, the term “one cent” would be replaced with “$0.01” and parentheticals (“(”) would be added to the numbering contained in Interpretation and Policy .02). Second, the Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C. Rule 6.53C contains separate provisions regarding the minimum net price increment applicable to complex orders that are submitted to the Exchange's electronic complex order book (“COB”) and the Exchange's automated complex order RFR auction process (“COA”). The rule currently provides that the appropriate Exchange committee will determine on a class-by-class basis whether the minimum net price increment for complex orders submitted COB or COA, as applicable, will be
(i)a multiple of the minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or $0.10, as applicable) or
(ii)a $0.01 increment. The Exchange is proposing to amend these provisions to provide that the minimum net price increment may be either a
(i)multiple of the minimum increment or
(ii)a smaller increment, provided that the increment may not be less than $0.01. This change is intended to provide additional clarity and flexibility for determining the applicable minimum net price increment for COB and COA. For example, the change accommodates the application of a minimum $0.05 net priced increment for COB and COA in the OEX and XEO option classes, similar to the special $0.05 increment provided under Rule 6.42(4). Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make various non-substantive changes to CBOE Rule 6.53C to update references to the applicable minimum increment (which now includes $0.01 in series participating in the Penny Pilot Program), delete an outdated reference to interim procedures regarding the N-second group timer (as described in Rule 6.45A(c)), reorganize and make various non-substantive changes to the text for clarity, and combine certain duplicative language regarding the issuance of regulatory circulars. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date of filing. The CBOE requests that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement as well as the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 13 and designate the proposed rule change operative immediately. The Commission believes that waiving the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as the proposed rule change presents no novel issues. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. 14 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 14 For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-01 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-01. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to SR-CBOE-2008-01 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 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. E8-708 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57131; File No. SR-MSRB-2007-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Rule G-8, Books and Records, Rule G-9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements, To Improve Transaction Reporting of New Issues January 11, 2008. 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 27, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change consisting of an amendment of its Rule G-8, Books and Records, Rule G-9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements. The proposed rule change is designed to improve transaction reporting of new issues and would accelerate the timing for CUSIP number assignment and, with the exception of new issues of short-term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity, require underwriters to:
(i)Submit certain information about a new issue of municipal securities to Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's New Issue Information Dissemination System within set timeframes; and
(ii)set and disseminate a “Time of First Execution” that allows time for market participants to access necessary information in preparation for trade reporting prior to beginning trade executions in the issue. The MSRB proposes an effective date for the proposed rule change of June 30, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site ( *http://www.msrb.org* ), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB 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 MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, requires all brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) to report all transactions in municipal securities to the MSRB Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (“RTRS”) within fifteen minutes of the time of trade execution, with limited exceptions. One exception listed in Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, paragraph (a)(ii) is a “three-hour exception” that allows a dealer three hours to report a transaction in a when, as and if issued (“when-issued”) security if all of the following conditions apply:
(i)The CUSIP number and indicative data of the issue traded are not in the securities master file used by the dealer to process trades for confirmations, clearance and settlement;
(ii)the dealer has not traded the issue in the previous year; and
(iii)the dealer is not a syndicate manager or syndicate member for the issue. 3 3 Another exception is an end-of-day deadline for reporting trades in short-term instruments under nine months in effective maturity, including variable rate instruments, auction rate products, and commercial paper. The three-hour exception was designed to give a dealer time to add a security to its “securities master file” so that a trade can be reported through the dealer's automated trade processing systems. A securities master file contains the information about a municipal security issue that is necessary for a dealer to be able to process transactions in the issue. It includes such items as the interest rate, dated date, interest payment cycle, and put and call schedules. The dealer's securities master file often contains information only for securities held in custody for customers and for securities that have been recently traded. If a dealer trades a security that is not in its securities master file, the relevant securities information must be obtained by the dealer from an information vendor before the trade can be processed and reported. 4 4 Many dealers use service bureaus for various trade processing functions, including the maintenance of securities master files. Securities master file update procedures for service bureaus are the same as those described for dealers. For new issue transactions, a dealer's access to necessary securities information depends not only on its link with an information vendor but also on whether that vendor itself has the information on the new issue. Vendors currently obtain much of their new issue information through voluntary cooperation from underwriters. This process does not always result in all the vendors having the necessary securities information by the time trade executions begin. Dealers trading a new issue for the first time need the three-hour exception from the fifteen-minute trade reporting requirement for their first trades in a new issue because the securities information is not always available at the time the trade is executed. 5 5 In the new issue market, information vendors seek to collect information on each issue and deliver it to customers in time for trade reporting in the new issue. There are several challenges for vendors and dealers to meet the reporting deadlines. For example, there are approximately 15,000 new municipal issues that must be set up in databases each month. Another problem for the industry is the fact that approximately 85 different information fields for each issue must be successfully gathered, which in large part depends on the timely cooperation of the underwriters. To address inefficiencies in the collection of new information securities data, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), industry members, securities information vendors, and other service providers in the municipal securities market have worked extensively with The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) to develop a centralized system for collecting and communicating new issue securities information. The system, called the “New Issue Information Dissemination System” (“NIIDS”), will be operated by DTCC and will act as a central collection point for standardized electronic files of new issue information provided by underwriters which will be disseminated in real-time to information vendors. Although the amount of securities information needed for trade reporting under Rule G-14 is limited, 6 many of the automated trade processing systems used to report trades currently need more extensive securities information (essentially the information necessary to produce a trade confirmation) before a trade can be reported. The industry initiative on NIIDS has resulted in a relatively comprehensive list of new issue securities data that will be collected and disseminated by NIIDS, including Time of Formal Award and Time of First Execution, discussed below. DTCC plans to implement NIIDS in early 2008. 7 6 RTRS only requires dealers to include limited information on trade reports in when-issued securities, such as the CUSIP number of the security traded, the par value of the transaction, and the transaction price expressed as either yield or dollar price. 7 In addition to providing an improved mechanism for disseminating the new issue information necessary for trade processing, the system also would use the information for purposes of establishing depository eligibility for new issues. DTCC plans to require use of the New Underwriting System (“NUWS”), of which NIIDS is a component, beginning in April 2008. The proposed rule change is designed to improve new issue transaction reporting through requiring underwriter participation with NIIDS. The proposed rule change prescribes timetables for submission of data to NIIDS and other underwriter procedures that are intended to ensure that all dealers have timely access to the new issue information that is needed for compliance with trade reporting requirements. The MSRB proposes a June 30, 2008 effective date for the proposed rule change. 8 8 NIIDS, in conjunction with MSRB rules, should make it possible for dealers to report new issue trades earlier and thus eliminate the need for the three-hour exception for when-issued trade reports. Accordingly, the MSRB has filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to sunset the “three-hour exception” on June 30, 2008, to coincide with the effective date of the proposed rule change. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57002 (December 20, 2007), 72 FR 73939 (December 28, 2007) (SR-MSRB-2007-07). Amendments to Rule G-34 Currently, Rule G-34 requires underwriters 9 to apply for CUSIP numbers within specific deadlines and to transmit a limited amount of information about a new issue such as the coupons, maturities and issue closing date to DTCC. The rule also contains a requirement for Time of Formal Award to be disseminated to market participants that may trade the new issue. The proposed rule change would accelerate the timing for CUSIP number assignment and, with the exception of new issues of short-term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity, require underwriters to:
(i)Submit certain information about a new issue of municipal securities to DTCC's NIIDS System within set timeframes; and
(ii)set and disseminate a “Time of First Execution” that allows time for market participants to access necessary information in preparation for trade reporting prior to beginning trade executions in the issue. 9 Rule G-34 defines “underwriter” very broadly to include a dealer acting as a placement agent as well as any dealer purchasing new issue securities from the issuer as principal. If there is an underwriting syndicate, the lead manager is considered to be the “underwriter” for purposes of Rule G-34. Timing of CUSIP Number Assignment CUSIP numbers are a required data element for automated trade processing and trade reporting systems and will be a prerequisite for entry of new issue information into NIIDS. Timely processing of new issue transactions requires that CUSIP numbers be assigned as early as possible in the underwriting process. Rule G-34 contains various requirements for underwriters, and for dealers acting as financial advisors on competitive sales, to apply to the CUSIP Service Bureau for CUSIP number assignment. The current deadlines are based on: The time the bond purchase agreement is executed (for underwriters in negotiated sales); the time of the issuer's award (for dealers acting as financial advisors in competitive sales); and the time of the first execution of a trade in the issue (for underwriters in competitive sales). The proposed rule change would set new deadlines designed to ensure CUSIP number assignment occurs as soon as possible in the underwriting process, allowing for the timely submission of new issue information to NIIDS. For negotiated issues, the proposed rule change would require that an application must be made no later than the time that the pricing information for the issue is determined. For a dealer acting as a financial advisor on a competitive deal, the proposed rule change would require an application for CUSIP number assignment to be made within one business day of dissemination of a notice of sale. The proposed rule change also states a general requirement that the underwriter on a negotiated underwriting and a dealer acting as a financial advisor on a competitive deal would be required to ensure that final CUSIP number assignment occurs prior to the formal award of the new issue. 10 10 Under existing provisions of Rule G-34, dealers frequently apply for CUSIP numbers before interest rates are determined. In these cases, the dealer must provide the final interest rate information as soon as it becomes available. The proposed rule change would clarify that a dealer must update any of the required information that changes after an initial application as soon as the new information becomes available. Rule G-34 currently requires the underwriter in a competitive sale to apply for CUSIP numbers if an application has not already been made by the issuer or the issuer's representative. The MSRB understands that CUSIP numbers for competitively sold issues generally are assigned by the date of sale, but that on occasion this is not done. 11 Dealers have noted that, in these situations, automated trade processing and real-time trade reporting for the issue may be delayed because of the time necessary for the underwriter to obtain CUSIP numbers after the formal award. The proposed rule change would clarify the underwriter's existing responsibility in such situations to apply for CUSIP numbers immediately after receiving the award. 11 As noted above, in competitive sales where a dealer serves as financial advisor, Rule G-34 requires the dealer to apply for CUSIP numbers. However, in competitive sales where there is no dealer financial advisor, there is no other dealer associated with the issue prior to the date of sale that can be charged under MSRB rules with the responsibility to make a pre-sale application for CUSIP numbers. Underwriter Requirement To Provide Information to NIIDS Within Certain Deadlines The proposed rule change would require underwriters to transmit new issue information to NIIDS within deadlines that are intended to ensure that the information reaches information vendors and is further re-disseminated for use in automated trade processing systems by the time that trade executions begin in a new issue. The specific items of information required to be submitted are those generally considered necessary for automated trade processing in an issue and are designated in the NIIDS system as items necessary for “Trade Eligibility.” Underwriters would be required to submit this information electronically in accordance with the methods and formats stated for NIIDS system users. The information could be provided through computer-to-computer links or through a web interface allowing manual input of data. Although the underwriter would be ultimately responsible for timely, comprehensive and accurate data submission, the proposed rule change would allow for use of an intermediary to accomplish this function. 12 12 Several industry vendors that provide “bookrunning” services to underwriters on new issues have indicated that they plan to offer a service to transmit information about a new issue to NIIDS on behalf of the underwriter. NIIDS is designed so that, once CUSIP numbers are assigned to a new issue, information about the issue can be submitted as it becomes available. The proposed rule change would require underwriters to provide information specified by NIIDS as required for Trade Eligibility as soon as it is available, with a final deadline for all such information to be provided no later than two hours after the Time of Formal Award, which would be redefined as discussed below. The proposed rule change also states that only the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern on an RTRS Business Day are counted for purposes of the timetables listed in the draft amendments. For example, if the Time of Formal Award occurs at 6 p.m. Eastern, the timetables listed in the proposed rule change would not commence until 9 a.m. Eastern on the next RTRS Business Day. Revised Definition of “Time of Formal Award” The Time of Formal Award represents the earliest time that a dealer can execute transactions in a new issue and is used currently in Rule G-34 and in the proposed rule change to set certain deadlines. The proposed rule change includes a minor change to the current definition of “Time of Formal Award” for purposes of Rule G-34 timetables. The MSRB understands that underwriters are not always present at the time the issuer executes a bond purchase agreement or formally confirms an award of a competitive issue. Some time may elapse between this time and the time at which the underwriter becomes aware of the issuer's action and this delay may not be under the control of the underwriter. To address this issue, the proposed rule change states that for purposes of Rule G-34, “Time of Formal Award” is defined as: • For competitive issues, the later of the time the issuer formally awards the issue or the time the issuer notifies the underwriter of the award; and, • for negotiated issues, the later of the time the contract to purchase the securities from the issuer is executed or the time the issuer notifies the underwriter of its execution of the agreement. The Time of Formal Award is one of the required information items to be submitted to NIIDS. Therefore, it would be subject to the general requirement to be submitted as soon as it is available as well as the ultimate deadline for submission of all required data, which is two hours after the Time of Formal Award. These requirements should ensure that all information necessary for trade reporting is available through NIIDS no later than two hours after the Time of Formal Award. “Time of First Execution” and Advance Notification Requirement The second major component of the amendments to Rule G-34 is an advance notification requirement that would ensure that all dealers have advance notification of the underwriter's planned time for first trade executions and can be prepared to process trade executions by that time. The MSRB understands that under current industry practices, underwriters do not always disseminate the time that they intend to begin trade executions. Consequently, dealers that are not in the underwriting group sometimes do not know when their own transactions in the issue should begin and this may negatively affect the ability of those dealers to report their initial transactions in a timely and accurate manner or to coordinate their reported time of trade execution on inter-dealer transactions with members of the underwriting group. To address this concern, the proposed rule change would require the underwriter of a new issue to disseminate the “Time of First Execution,” which is the underwriter's anticipated time for beginning trade executions in a new issue. Once an underwriter has completed the submission of all required information to NIIDS, the information then will need to be re-disseminated to other dealers that may have trades in the issue and these dealers (and service bureaus) will need to “set up” automated trade processing systems with the new issue information. To allow time for this process to occur, the underwriter would be required to provide a Time of First Execution that is at least two hours after the time that all required information is provided to NIIDS. The proposed rule change would accommodate several situations that may occur in the underwriting of new issues of municipal securities. For example, the underwriter would be allowed to submit an anticipated Time of Formal Award rather than wait for the actual Time of Formal Award if the underwriter and issuer have agreed in advance on a Time of Formal Award. This may be the case if the formal award is a scheduled pro forma requirement by an issuer's governing body and all details necessary for the formal award have been finalized and submitted to NIIDS in advance. The underwriter could in this case complete its submission to NIIDS using the anticipated Time of Formal Award. By doing this, the underwriter could schedule its Time of First Execution to occur immediately after the formal award, rather than waiting two hours. Any changes to these times would require correction in NIIDS as soon as known. As long as the two-hour notification period has been met once, however, it would not be necessary to start a new notification period as a result of minor adjustments to the Time of Formal Award or Time of First Execution. Amendments to Rules G-8 and G-9 The proposed rule change includes amendments to the MSRB's recordkeeping rules that would require an underwriter to retain for three years a record of the Time of Formal Award, a copy of the notification from DTCC indicating that a new issue received Trade Eligibility status in NIIDS and the Time of First Execution. This would provide a record showing whether the underwriter provided information necessary for Trade Eligibility no later than two hours after the Time of Formal Award and whether the underwriter provided at least two hours advance notification of the Time of First Execution. 2. Statutory Basis The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 13 which provides that the MSRB's rules shall: 13 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). 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. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The MSRB 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 because it would apply equally to all brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others On March 5, 2007, the MSRB published for comment an exposure draft of the proposed rule change 14 (the “March 2007 draft amendments”). 15 While the MSRB did not request comment on the amendments to Rule G-8 and G-9, these amendments were included in the proposed rule change to provide enforcement agencies with information necessary to gauge compliance with the amendments to Rule G-34. 14 *See* MSRB Notice 2007-10 (March 5, 2007). 15 The March 2007 draft amendments also included amendments to Rule G-14 that would create a new Conditional Trading Commitment
(CTC)special condition indicator. The CTC indicator is not included in the proposed rule change as it is still under consideration by the MSRB. The MSRB received comments on the March 2007 draft amendments from the following commentators: —Bear Stearns and Co., Inc. —Standard and Poor's CUSIP Service Bureau (“CUSIP”). —First Southwest Company (“First Southwest”). —J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc. (“Hilliard Lyons”). —Joe Jolly and Co., Inc. —Lehman Brothers (“Lehman”). —Roosevelt and Cross, Inc. (“Roosevelt and Cross”). —Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”). —Wiley Bros. While many of the commentators made specific suggestions on details of the March 2007 draft amendments, commentators were generally supportive. SIFMA “supports * * * efforts by the MSRB to improve the efficiency of new issue information to the market necessary for dealers to comply with price reporting requirements.” Hilliard Lyons stated “the centralization of an electronic system for new issue trade processing is a change that the industry has been eager for implementation * * * [and the MSRB's] proposal would alleviate the duplication of information that is sent to numerous vendors and would cut down on the time needed to process new issues.” Roosevelt and Cross agreed “with the philosophy of a central issue facility, which would make more information available on a timely basis and would increase transparency in the municipal marketplace.” Timing of CUSIP Number Assignment CUSIP numbers are a required data element for automated trade processing and reporting systems and are a prerequisite for entry of new issue information into NIIDS. Rule G-34 currently requires that CUSIP numbers be assigned prior to the Time of Formal Award for underwriters of negotiated issues and for dealer financial advisors on competitive issues. The March 2007 draft amendments included new deadlines designed to ensure that CUSIP number assignment occurs as soon as possible in the underwriting so that information submission to NIIDS could occur as early as possible. The March 2007 draft amendments stated the following requirements: • Managing underwriter of negotiated issue—apply for CUSIP number assignment within one business day of dissemination of a Preliminary Official Statement (POS); for issues sold without a POS, apply no later than the time pricing information is finalized. • Dealer financial advisor on competitive issue—apply for CUSIP number assignment within one business day of dissemination of a POS; for issues sold without a POS, apply within one business day of a notice of sale. • Managing underwriter of competitive issue with no pre-assigned CUSIP numbers—apply immediately after receiving notification of award and ensure that CUSIP numbers are assigned prior to transmitting Time of First Execution to NIIDS. While CUSIP stated that it “has always encouraged industry participants to apply for CUSIP numbers as early as possible” and supports the proposed changes to Rule G-34 that would advance the timing of CUSIP number assignment, several commentators opposed a requirement to apply for CUSIP numbers earlier in an underwriting. SIFMA and First Southwest recommended that the existing requirements for CUSIP number assignment remain unchanged because information about a new issue is not always final at the time of the dissemination of a POS. SIFMA stated that “the maturity schedule in a POS is tentative and very likely to change requiring underwriters to revise the application” and noted that “while CUSIP numbers can be revised, the revisions result in numbers being out of sequence, and out of sequence numbers raise questions by investors and traders, as well as complicating operations.” SIFMA noted that underwriters that want to set an early Time of First Execution would be required to apply for CUSIP numbers earlier than is currently required under Rule G-34; however, while this may occur in some instances, the MSRB believes that many underwriters will continue to postpone making an application for CUSIP number assignment until shortly before the Time of Formal Award. If a POS is not disseminated on a new issue, the March 2007 draft amendments included an alternative deadline for making a CUSIP number application. For a negotiated issue, the March 2007 draft amendments proposed requiring an underwriter to apply for CUSIP numbers at the time that pricing information is determined. For a dealer financial advisor on a competitive issue, the March 2007 draft amendments proposed requiring the dealer financial advisor to apply for CUSIP numbers within one business day of a notice of sale. The MSRB decided to use these alternative deadlines in the proposed rule change as they occur later in an underwriting than the time that a POS would typically be disseminated, but in advance of the Time of Formal Award, and should have the desired effect of advancing the timing of CUSIP number assignment. Definition of “Time of Formal Award” The March 2007 draft amendments revised the definition of “Time of Formal Award” to take into consideration that time may elapse between the time of the issuer's action and the time the underwriter becomes aware of the issuer's action. Although commentators were supportive of the revised definition of Time of Formal Award, SIFMA clarified that for a competitive transaction they “interpret time of formal award not to occur before there is a set quantity and price,” a definition with which the MSRB agrees. New Issue Information Necessary for Trade Reporting To ensure that all information necessary for transaction reporting is made available to market participants as quickly as possible, the March 2007 draft amendments would require underwriters to transmit to NIIDS all new issue information designated in the NIIDS system as necessary for “Trade Eligibility” no later than two hours of the Time of Formal Award and include the Time of Formal Award (or the planned Time of Formal Award) as part of the information transmitted to NIIDS. The MSRB requested comment on whether the two-hour period after the Time of Formal Award for completing the information submission to NIIDS would be sufficient and whether the time period should be different for negotiated and competitive underwritings. Commentators were supportive of the two-hour timeframe for completing the communication to NIIDS of new issue information designated as necessary for “Trade Eligibility” for negotiated issues. However, Lehman proposed a longer period of three hours for competitive issues, citing inefficient communication with issuers who do not retain professional financial services. Wiley Bros. suggested revisiting the issue after the system has been implemented for a six-month period to determine whether the two hour period should be shortened or lengthened. The MSRB notes that it will review the deadlines in the proposed rule change once NIIDS is implemented and dealers gain system experience. Time of First Execution and Advance Notification Requirements To ensure that dealers that are not part of the underwriting group for the new issue are apprised of the time that the underwriter will initiate trade executions in the new issue and to ensure that those dealers will be prepared to process and report their own transactions in a timely manner, the March 2007 draft amendments included a requirement for underwriters to disseminate the Time of First Execution through NIIDS and provide a Time of First Execution that is no earlier than two hours after all required new issue information has been provided to NIIDS. The MSRB noted that, while electronically formatted information can be retransmitted immediately, it believes that the two-hour advance notification period prior to the Time of First Execution would be sufficient for vendors, dealers, and service bureaus to receive and enter information disseminated from NIIDS into their own systems. While all comments received on the two-hour advance notification period prior to the Time of First Execution indicate support, First Southwest noted that this timeframe should “be reviewed as the industry gains experience with the NIIDS submission process.” Similarly, SIFMA commented that “it may be useful for the MSRB to have the flexibility to make adjustments in response to circumstances” that may arise after continued use of the NIIDS system. The MSRB notes that it will review the two hour advance notification period once NIIDS is implemented and dealers gain system experience. Timely Trade Reporting and Underwriter Flexibility For the various requirements for submitting information to NIIDS and setting a Time of First Execution, the March 2007 draft amendments state that only the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on an RTRS Business Day are counted. A major implication of this is that an underwriter that does not obtain and transmit all required data elements to NIIDS by 3 p.m. Eastern Time would not be able to set a Time of First Execution on that day. The MSRB noted that this may present difficulties for West Coast underwriters, and requested suggestions for alternative approaches to help address time zone issues. Lehman and Wiley Bros. agreed that the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. hours are sufficient, adding only that “a provision should be included for ‘early closes.’ ” Proposed Effective Dates of the Draft Amendments The MSRB requested comment on how much lead time would be necessary for underwriters to implement the changes required to use the NIIDS system and for dealers to implement the CTC indicator. Most commentators noted that it is difficult to commit to a time frame until NIIDS has been implemented and experience with the system has been gained. Lehman noted that “as this a major change in the way of doing business, a long lead time would be warranted.” First Southwest and SIFMA both noted that at least six months should be allowed after NIIDS is implemented for dealers to program the changes required. Roosevelt and Cross suggested a tiered approach for requiring the submission of NIIDS data requirements, citing potential “unfair processing burdens on managing underwriters.” Roosevelt and Cross proposed splitting the required data elements into two components, requiring only data elements essential to completing the transaction to be inputted at the time of sale and the remaining elements within 24 hours. The MSRB notes that a SIFMA/DTCC task force identified the data elements about a new issue as necessary for automated trade processing of when-issued trades. This information is designated in NIIDS as information necessary for “Trade Eligibility.” While the MSRB recognizes that the proposed rule change would represent a significant change for underwriters, one of the objectives is to ensure that all dealers have access to information necessary to process and report trades in new issues in real-time. Short-Term Instruments with Less than Nine Months in Effective Maturity The MSRB also requested comment on whether certain types of new issues of municipal securities have special characteristics or use different “bookrunning” services that would present difficulties for underwriters to comply with the draft amendments to Rule G-34. SIFMA stated that short-term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity, such as variable rate instruments, auction rate products and commercial paper, “each have operational issues that present problems distinct from long-term fixed-rate securities” that would make complying with the NIIDS data dissemination requirement difficult. SIFMA noted that “intermediaries may not be available to process the fields for Trade Eligibility with the result that underwriters may themselves be required to populate the fields and have systems in place to enter the data in the two hour period allowed by the proposed rule.” The MSRB notes that trades in short-term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity qualify for an end-of-day exception from real-time transaction reporting. Therefore, one of the primary purposes of the March 2007 draft amendments, to improve timely real-time transaction reporting of new issues, does not necessarily apply. While underwriters would be able to manually input information about a new issue to NIIDS through a web interface, the MSRB believes that the burden of complying with the requirement in the March 2007 draft amendments to transmit to NIIDS all new issue information designated as necessary for “Trade Eligibility” no later than two hours of the Time of Formal Award for short term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity would not be warranted given the marginal benefit to price transparency that would be achieved. The MSRB decided that the NIIDS data dissemination requirement for new issues that have an effective maturity of nine months or less should be phased in at a later time once intermediaries or dealer systems are able to submit information about such securities to NIIDS electronically. 16 16 The MSRB notes that Trade Eligibility information on short term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity would still be required to be submitted to DTCC in connection with an underwriter's requirement to apply for depository eligibility under Rule G-34(a)(ii)(A), but would not be subject to the requirement to communicate such information not later than two hours after the Time of Formal Award. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-MSRB-2007-08 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-MSRB-2007-08. 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 MSRB. 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-MSRB-2007-08 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 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. E8-732 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57132; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-125] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Continued Listing Standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities January 11, 2008. I. Introduction On December 5, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), 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 proposal to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), which sets forth the Exchange's continued listing criteria for Equity Index-Linked Securities. 3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) defines Equity Index-Linked Securities as securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes of equity securities, also referred to as the “Equity Reference Asset.” *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56918 (December 6, 2007), 72 FR 70635 (“Notice”). II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposes to remove from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a) the continued listing requirement for Equity Index-Linked Securities that prohibits the number of components comprising the underlying index from increasing or decreasing by 33 1/3 % from the original number of index components at the time of initial listing of such securities (the “33 1/3 % Requirement”). 5 The Exchange states that its listing standards for exchange-traded funds under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and those of other national securities exchanges do not impose this same limitation regarding the change in the number of components comprising the underlying index. The Exchange believes that, in the case of Equity Index-Linked Securities, investors purchase such securities because they believe that the underlying index methodology is accurately described in the offering documentation, and that the index sponsor will maintain the index methodology appropriately, so that the index will continue to represent the sector, geographic region, or other investment characteristics the index is designed to track. As such, rather than buying Equity Index-Linked Securities on the basis of the current contents of the index, the Exchange states that investors rely on the index sponsor to define and manage the index selection rules so that the index over time is sustainable in response to changing market conditions. 5 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii). In addition, because Equity Index-Linked Securities may have terms that endure for as long as 30 years, the Exchange states it is likely that the underlying index for such securities will ultimately change in ways that will render them non-compliant with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii), and as a result, the Exchange believes that the 33 1/3 % Requirement penalizes Equity Index-Linked Securities with such long-term maturities. Specifically, Equity Index-Linked Securities based on total industry/country composite indexes are at risk of being delisted prior to the stated maturity date. In addition, new issues of Equity Index-Linked Securities may not be launched because of issuer concerns regarding the negative impact of the possible delisting of such securities due to index component changes that reflect expanding or retracting industry sectors or changes in the geographical business environment. The Exchange does not believe that it is protective of investors to require the delisting of those Equity Index-Linked Securities in such event. Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to maintain the 10-component minimum requirement in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii) as a continued listing standard by moving reference to this requirement to Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), which would make reference to Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a), as proposed. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a) requires that each underlying index have at least 10 component securities of different issuers. III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations, 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. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 in that it is designed 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. 6 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). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission notes that, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A)(b), certain issues of Equity Index-Linked Securities may have terms that endure for as long as 30 years and, depending on the degree of focus and investment objectives of the Equity Reference Asset, the number of components comprising the underlying equity index may change during this time period and could put an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities at risk of being non-compliant with the 33 1/3 % Requirement. Therefore, Equity Index-Linked Securities could be subject to delisting prior to their stated maturity date. The Commission believes that eliminating the 33 1/3 % Requirement reasonably balances the removal of impediments to a free and open market with the protection of investors and the public interest, two principles set forth in section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 8 The Commission notes that each issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities must continue to maintain all of the initial listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities, including the continued requirement that each underlying index have a minimum of 10 component securities of different issuers under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a), and satisfy the continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), including the enhanced minimum concentration limits under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i). Given the variety of certain equity indexes that focus on specific industry sectors and geographic markets, for example, and the extended duration of maturities for certain Equity Index-Linked Securities, the Commission believes that the number of components in an index may increase or decrease by more than 33 1/3 % from the number of components in the index at the time of initial listing without adversely impacting the interests of investors. At the same time, the Commission believes that the proposal should benefit investors by creating additional alternatives to investing in such products and competition in the market for Equity Index-Linked Securities, while maintaining transparency of the underlying components comprising an index. As such, the Commission believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to modify the listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities in the manner described in the proposal. 8 *Id.* IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-125), be, and it hereby is, approved. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-707 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57130; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Expand, and Make Permanent, the $1 Strike Program January 10, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 8, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the $1 Strike Program (“Program”) to expand, and make permanent, the Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, 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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to expand the Program and request permanent approval of the Program. The Program currently allows NYSE Arca to select a total of 5 individual stocks 5 on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. In order to be eligible for selection into the Program, the underlying stock must close below $20 in its primary market on the previous trading day. If selected for the Program, the Exchange may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $3 to $20, but no $1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous day. The Exchange also may list $1 strikes on any other option class designated by other securities exchanges that employ a similar $1 strikes program under their respective rules. The Exchange may not list long-term option series (“LEAPS”) at $1 strike price intervals for any class selected for the Program. The Exchange also is restricted from listing any series that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart. 5 The Exchange listed five issues for inclusion in the original Program. In February 2004, according to the Exchange, Celanese Corp.
(CE)was acquired by another company and was removed from the Program, bringing the number of issues to four. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .04 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 to expand the Program to allow it to select a total of 10 individual stocks on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to expand the price range on which it may list $1 strikes, presently from $3 to $20, to now include stocks priced from $3 to $50. The existing restrictions on listing $1 strikes will continue, *e.g.* , no $1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous day, and the Exchange is restricted from listing any series that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart. In addition, because it believes that the Program has been very successful by allowing investors to establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives, the Exchange requests that the Program be approved on a permanent basis. As stated in the Commission order approving NYSE Arca's Program and in the subsequent extensions of the Program, 6 the Exchange believes that $1 strike price intervals provide investors with greater flexibility in the trading of equity options that overlie lower priced stocks by allowing investors to establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Exchange states that its member firms representing customers have requested that NYSE Arca seek to expand the Program, both in terms of the number of classes which can be selected and the range in which $1 strikes may be listed. 6 The Commission approved the Program on June 17, 2003. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48045 (June 17, 2003), 68 FR 37594 (June 24, 2003) (SR-PCX-2003-28). The Program has subsequently been extended and is presently due to expire on June 5, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49818 (June 4, 2004), 69 FR 33440 (June 15, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-39) (extending the Program until August 4, 2004); 50152 (August 5, 2004), 69 FR 49931 (August 12, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-61) (extending the Program until June 5, 2005); 51767 (May 31, 2005), 70 FR 33244 (June 7, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-69) (extending the Program until June 5, 2006); 53807 (May 15, 2006), 71 FR 29373 (May 22, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-14) (extending the Program until June 5, 2007); and 55718 (May 7, 2007), 72 FR 27346 (May 15, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-42) (extending the Program until June 5, 2008). With regard to the impact on systems capacities, the Exchange's analysis of the Program shows that the impact on NYSE Arca's, OPRA's, and market data vendors' respective automated systems has been minimal. In a previously filed proposed rule change, 7 the Exchange included an analysis of quoting activity for all classes selected for the Program as a percentage of all quoting activity for all classes being quoted during a specific number of months. The Exchange concluded that, for the two-month period prior to the implementation of the Program in May 2003, the number of quotes sent to OPRA in the four classes selected for the Program represented approximately 0.29% of all quotes sent by the Exchange. For the two-month period ending March 31, 2007, the quote share in the four classes selected for the Program was 0.26%, slightly below the May 2003 levels. The Exchange notes that these quoting statistics may actually overstate the contribution of $1 strike prices because these figures also include quotes for series listed in intervals higher than $1 ( *e.g.* , $2.50 strikes) in the same option classes. Even with the non-$1 strike series quotes included in these figures, NYSE Arca believes that the overall impact on capacity is still minimal. NYSE Arca represents that it has sufficient capacity to handle an expansion of the Program, as proposed. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55718 (May 7, 2007), 72 FR 27346 (May 15, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-42). The Exchange believes that the Program has provided investors with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to more closely tailor their investment strategies and decisions to the movement of the underlying security. Furthermore, the Exchange has not detected any material proliferation of illiquid options series resulting from the narrower strike price intervals. For these reasons, NYSE Arca requests that the Program be approved on a permanent basis. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that $1 strike prices stimulate customer interest in options overlying lower-priced stocks by creating greater trading opportunities and flexibility. The Exchange believes that 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, because 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 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 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 it 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 foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this 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 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with 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 fulfilled this requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can immediately implement these listing rules, as proposed, that are similar to those of other options exchanges 12 and thereby remain competitive with such exchanges. 12 *See, e.g.,* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57049 (December 27, 2007), 73 FR 528 (January 3, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-125) (approving the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's proposal to expand and make permanent its equivalent $1 strike program). The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change will provide the Exchange's members and customers with added flexibility in the trading of equity options and promote, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for such options. 13 For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to monitor for options with little or no open interest and trading activity and to act promptly to delist such options. In addition, the Commission expects that NYSE Arca will continue to monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems. 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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-NYSEArca-2008-04 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-NYSEArca-2008-04. 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 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-NYSEArca-2008-04 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-709 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57135; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-83] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 2.17 and 4.5 Relating to Certain OTP Holder and OTP Firm Administrative Procedures January 11, 2008. I. Introduction On November 7, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend its Rules 2.17 and 4.5 relating to certain OTP Holder and OTP Firm administrative procedures. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 18, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule changes. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56058 (Jul. 12, 2007), 72 FR 39476. II. Description of the Proposal NYSE Arca Rule 2.17 currently provides that all Options Trading Permit (“OTP”) Firms 4 must file their formation documents with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 2.17 in order to provide that only those OTP Firms for which the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority must submit such formation documents to the Exchange. 4 *See* NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(r). NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(c) currently requires OTP Holders 5 and OTP Firms that carry or clear accounts for customers to file two manually signed copies of Part II of SEC Form X-17A-5 with the Exchange on a quarterly basis. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(c) to provide that such reports shall be filed electronically with the Exchange, rather than manually, and that the OTP Holder or OTP Firm, as applicable, shall maintain original copies of such reports with manual signatures in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 11.16(a). 6 5 *See* NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(q). 6 NYSE Arca Rule 11.16(a) provides that each OTP Holder and OTP Firm must make, keep current and preserve such books and records as the Exchange may prescribe and as may be prescribed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder (including any interpretation relating thereto) as though such OTP Holder or OTP Firm were a broker or dealer registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act. NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(d) currently requires OTP Holders and OTP Firms that do not carry or clear accounts for customers to file two manually signed copies of Part IIA of SEC Form X-17A-5 with the Exchange on a quarterly basis. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(d) to provide that such reports shall be filed electronically with the Exchange, rather than manually, and that the OTP Holder or OTP Firm, as applicable, shall maintain original copies of such reports with manual signatures in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 11.16(a). 7 7 *Id* . The Exchange proposes amending NYSE Arca Rule 4.5(c) and
(d)to codify procedural changes that have been implemented by the Exchange and to be consistent with guidance that has been provided previously to OTP Holders and OTP Firms. III. Discussion After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations applicable to a national securities exchange. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 9 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 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 believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to amend NYSE Arca Rules 2.17 and 4.5(c) and
(d)in order to simplify the administrative procedures that OTP Holders and OTP Firms must follow, given the fact that the Exchange believes that such amendments will not compromise the Exchange's ability to regulate its OTP Holders and OTP Firms. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-83), as amended, be, and hereby is, approved. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-736 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57136; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-82] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.16 and 4.5 Relating to Certain ETP Holder Administrative Procedures January 11, 2008. I. Introduction On November 7, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities” or the “Corporation”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend its Rules 2.16 and 4.5 relating to certain ETP Holder administrative procedures. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 18, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule changes. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56057 (Jul. 12, 2007), 72 FR 39477. II. Description of the Proposal NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.16 currently provides that all Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders 4 must file their formation documents with the Corporation. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.16 in order to provide that only those ETP Holders for which the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority must submit such formation documents to the Corporation. 4 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(n). NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(b) currently requires ETP Holders that carry or clear accounts for customers to file two manually signed copies of Part II of SEC Form X-17A-5 with the Corporation on a quarterly basis. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(b) to provide that such reports shall be filed electronically with the Corporation, rather than manually, and that the ETP Holder shall maintain original copies of such reports with manual signatures in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24. 5 5 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24 provides that each ETP Holder must make, keep current and preserve such books and records as the Exchange may prescribe and as may be prescribed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder (including any interpretation relating thereto) as though such ETP Holders were brokers or dealers registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(c) currently requires ETP Holders that do not carry or clear accounts for customers to file two manually signed copies of Part IIA of SEC Form X-17A-5 with the Corporation on a quarterly basis. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5(c) to provide that such reports shall be filed electronically with the Corporation, rather than manually, and that the ETP Holder shall maintain original copies of such reports with manual signatures in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24. 6 6 *Id.* Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.5 to codify procedural changes that have been implemented by the Exchange and to be consistent with guidance that has been provided previously to ETP Holders. III. Discussion After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 8 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 7 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). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.16 and 4.5(b) and
(c)in order to simplify the administrative procedures that ETP Holders must follow, given the fact that the Exchange believes that such amendments will not compromise the Exchange's ability to regulate its ETP Holders. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-82), as amended, be, and hereby is, approved. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 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. E8-737 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57122; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges January 10, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. NYSE Arca has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a member 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 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 NYSE Arca is proposing to amend the existing Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Schedule”) to remove the fee reference associated with a pilot program that offered a monthly cap on the Firm Facilitation Fee. The pilot program expired on December 31, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.nyse.com* , the principal offices of the Exchange, 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 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. NYSE Arca 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 its Schedule to reflect the termination of a pilot program under which OTP Firms are eligible for a monthly cap of $50,000 on Firm Facilitation Fees (“Pilot”). The Pilot was established as part of SR-NYSEArca-2007-93 5 and was in effect through December 31, 2007. By offering a monthly cap of the Firm Facilitation Fee, the Exchange hoped to garner additional order flow from market participants that were attracted to the competitive fee structure. The Exchange offered this fee cap on a limited pilot basis in order to measure its effectiveness and then make a determination whether to adopt it on a permanent basis. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56595 (October 1, 2007) 72 FR 57372 (October 9, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-93). In addition to the establishment of the Pilot Program capping monthly fees, SR-NYSEArca-2007-93 proposed other changes related to the Firm Facilitation Fee. This filing serves only to amend the Schedule by removing the reference to the fee cap, and proposes no other changes to the application of the Firm Facilitation Fee. After analyzing the effectiveness of the fee cap during the Pilot, the Exchange determined that the Pilot did not meet its stated objectives, and therefore the Exchange did not extend the program. The program expired on December 31, 2007. The Exchange now plans to revise the Schedule to remove the reference to the Pilot Program. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 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 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 The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 9 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission. 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. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 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-NYSEArca-2008-02 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-NYSEArca-2008-02. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-02 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-792 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57134; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-68] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Deletion of Rule 702, Carrying Accounts January 11, 2008. I. Introduction On November 9, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to delete Phlx Rule 702. regarding Carrying Accounts. Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on January 18, 2007. Notice of the proposal, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Exchange Act Release No. 55256 (Feb. 8, 2007), 72 FR 7106 (Feb. 14, 2007). II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of the proposed rule change to delete Rule 702, Carrying Accounts, is to eliminate an unnecessary and confusing Exchange rule. Currently, Rule 702 provides that “[n]o member, doing business as an individual, shall carry accounts for customers, except as provided in Rule 903.” 4 4 The reference to Rule 903 is clearly an incorrect reference which should be to Rule 904, Use of a Partnership Name, which provides that “[n]o member shall conduct business under a partnership firm name unless he has at least one general partner, provided, however, that if by death or otherwise a member becomes the sole general partner in a member organization that is a partnership he may continue business under the partnership name for such period as may be allowed by the Committee.” Rule 702 is unnecessary because a Phlx member's ability to carry customer accounts is dictated by its ability to comply with relevant securities laws and regulations, including Exchange Act Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3, which do not make distinctions on the basis of a broker-dealer's organizational and corporate structure. Rule 702 creates confusion because virtually all “members” are individuals. The term “member” (as opposed to “member organization”) is defined in Exchange Rules as a permit holder which has not been terminated in accordance with the by-laws of the Exchange. 5 Currently, the only issued and outstanding Exchange permits are Series A-1 Permits, the terms and conditions of which are governed by Rule 908. Among other things, section
(b)of Rule 908 provides that a Series A-1 permit shall only be issued to an *individual* . 6 Pursuant to Rule 908, all Series A-1 permit holders must maintain an affiliation with a “member organization,” which are not subject to Rule 702. 5 *See* Exchange By-Law Article I, Section 1(t) and Exchange Rule 1(n). Exchange By-Law Article XII, Section 1(b) provides in part that “[e]xcept as otherwise set forth in the rules of the Exchange or any resolution of the Board of Governors authorizing a specific class or series of permits, a permit will confer upon and subject the holder thereof to all the privileges and obligations of a member pursuant to these By-Laws and the rules of the Exchange, * * * and to conduct business on the Exchange as provided in these By-Laws and such rules.” 6 Rule 908 does contain one exception, which is not relevant to this analysis, that provides that a Series A-1 Permit may also be issued to “a corporation meeting the requirements of Section 12-4 of the By-Laws.” Section 12-4 of the By-Laws, Admission of Corporation, provides that “[a] corporation may be issued a permit by the Exchange, provided such corporation is incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and all of its capital stock is owned by the Exchange.” This By-Law provision was intended to permit Exchange membership for the Exchange's subsidiary, Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The Commission believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to eliminate an unnecessary and confusing Exchange rule. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2005-68) be and hereby 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. E8-733 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration
(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages included in this notice are for new information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and how to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* . (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400, E-mail address: *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov* . I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. Application for a Social Security Card—20 CFR 422.103-.110—0960-0066. Forms SS-5 (used in the United States) and SS-5-FS (used outside the United States) are to apply for original and replacement Social Security cards. Revisions are being made to the race/ethnicity question of the form to reflect OMB standards; additionally, several other minor changes are being made to the form's instructions. The respondents are applicants for original and replacement Social Security cards. *Type of Request:* Revision to an OMB-approved information collection. Application scenario Number of annual respondents Completion time Burden hours Respondents who do not have to provide parents' SSNs 13,000,000 8 1/2 1,841,667 Respondents who are asked to provide parents' SSNs (for application for original SSN cards for children under age 18) 540,000 9 81,000 Applicants age 12 or older who need to answer additional questions so SSA can determine whether an SSN was previously assigned 40,000 9 1/2 6,333 Applicants asking for a replacement SSN card beyond the allowable limits (i.e., who must provide additional documentation to accompany the application) 4,000 60 4,000 Totals 13,584,000 1,933,000 II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. State Mental Institution Policy Review Booklet—20 CFR 404.2035, 404.2065, 416.635, & 416.665—0960-0110. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-9584-BK to determine whether an institution's policies and practices conform with SSA's regulations in the use of benefits and whether the institution is performing other duties and responsibilities required of a representative payee. The information also provides a basis for conducting an onsite review of the institution and the subsequent report of findings. The respondents are State mental institutions which serve as representative payees for Social Security beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)claimants. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 95. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 60 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 95 hours. 2. Development for Participation in a Vocational Rehabilitation or Similar Program—20 CFR 404.316(c), 404.337(c), 404.352(d), 404.1586(g), 404.1596, 404.1597(a), 404.327, 404.328, and 416.1338(c) and
(d)416.1320(d), 416.1331(a)-(b), and 416.1338—0960-0282. SSA State Disability Determination Services
(DDS)must determine if a disability beneficiary who
(1)no longer has a disability and
(2)is enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program can continue to receive Social Security disability benefits and SSI payments. To determine continuing eligibility, SSA needs information about the beneficiary, the type of program he/she is enrolled in and the types of services the beneficiary is receiving under the auspices of that program. SSA uses Form SSA-4290 to collect this information. The respondents are State Employment Networks, Vocational Rehabilitation agencies or other providers of education/job training services. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 3,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 750 hours. 3. Social Security Statement Survey -0960-NEW. Background As per *42 U.S.C. 1320b-13* , SSA is required to provide benefits and earnings statements to Social Security number-holders age 25 and over who earn wages. This document, provided annually, is called the *Social Security Statement.* In response to a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), SSA has begun a systematic and regular evaluation of customer satisfaction with the *Statement* . To implement the GAO recommendations, SSA has developed a process for evaluating customer satisfaction with the *Social Security Statement* on a systematic and routine basis. Description of Proposed Surveys To take the evaluation process one step further, SSA is planning to conduct a national survey to monitor and improve customer satisfaction with the messages in the 2007 *Statement* . The 2007 *Statement* contains new Windfall Elimination Provision/Government Pension Offset (WEP/GPO) language as mandated by law. There are two versions of the WEP/GPO language in the *Statement* to accommodate different groups of wage-earners: Those who have an earnings history with both covered and non-covered earnings under Social Security and those who have only earnings covered under Social Security. Each group will receive a *Statement* with WEP/GPO language specific to them and will be surveyed to determine their satisfaction. Information obtained through this evaluation will help SSA improve the *Statement* as a communications product that meets SSA's goals and assures the public is aware of, understands and can act upon the information the *Statement* provides in a timely way. The two groups of respondents match the two groups of wage earners. Burden Information Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Recipients with covered and non-covered earnings history 600 1 10 100 Recipients with covered earnings only 600 1 10 100 Total 1200 200 4. Student Reporting Form—20 CFR 404.352(b)(2), 404.368, 404.415, 404.434, 422.135—0960-0088. SSA uses the information collected by Form SSA-1383 to determine the effect of reported events on Social Security student beneficiaries' continuing entitlement to these benefits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 75,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 6 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 7,500 hours. 5. Electronic Death Registration (EDR)—20 CFR 404.301; 404.310-311; 404.316; 404.330-341; 404.350-352; and 404.371; 416.912—0960-0700. SSA has contracted with the States to obtain death certificate information to compare it to SSA's payment files. This match ensures the accuracy of our payment files by detecting unreported or inaccurate dates of deaths of beneficiaries. Entitlement to retirement, disability, wife's, husband's or parent's benefits under the provisions of the Social Security Act terminates when the beneficiary dies. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. Collection format Number of respondents Frequency of responses Average cost per record request Estimated annual cost burden State Death Match—Manual Process 35 50,000 per State $0.72 $1,260,000 State Death Match—Electronic Death Registration
(EDR)18 50,000 per State 2.58 2,322,000 Total 53 3,582,000 *Estimated Annual Cost for all respondents:* **Please note that both of these data matching processes are entirely electronic and there is no hourly burden for the respondent to provide this information. The cost burdens are based on the four cost components incurred by the respondents: —Software; —hardware; —average annual salaries of database management personnel; and —average annual salaries of support personnel. 6. Work Activity Report (Self-Employed Person)—20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571-404.1576, 404.1584-404.1593, and 416.971-.976—0960-0598. SSA uses the information on Form SSA-820-F4 to determine initial or continuing eligibility for SSI or Social Security disability benefits. Under Titles II and XVI of the Act, applicants for disability benefits must prove an inability to perform any kind of Substantial Gainful Activity
(SGA)generally available in the national economy for which they might be expected to qualify on the basis of age, education and work experience. SSA needs to secure information about this work to ascertain whether the applicant was (or is) engaging in SGA. Work after a claimant becomes entitled can cause the cessation of disability benefits. SSA needs the information obtained on Form SSA-820-F4 to determine if a cessation of benefits should occur. The respondents are applicants and claimants for SSI or Social Security disability benefits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 100,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 50,000 hours. 7. Modified Benefit Formula Questionnaire-Employer—20 CFR 401 & 402—0960-0477. When a claimant alleges receipt of a pension based on non-covered employment after 1956 and the claimant reaches age 62 or becomes disabled after 1985, SSA must determine whether the modified benefit formula is applicable and when to first apply it to a person's benefit. SSA collects information on Form SSA-58 to determine whether Social Security benefits should be adjusted. This form will be sent to an employer for pension-related information if the claimant is unable to provide it. The respondents are certain individuals who are eligible for both Social Security benefits and a pension based on work not covered by SSA. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 30,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Average Burden:* 10,000 hours. 8. Disability Determination and Transmittal—20 CFR 404.1615(e), 416.1015(f)—0960-0437. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-831-C3/U3 to document the State agency determination as to whether an individual who applies for disability benefits is eligible for those benefits based on his/her alleged disability. SSA also uses the information for program management and evaluation. The respondents are State DDS adjudicating Title II and Title XVI disability determinations for SSA. *Type of Request:* Extension of OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 3,079,916. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Average Burden:* 769,979 hours. 9. Cessation or Continuance of Disability or Blindness Determination—20 CFR 404.1615. 416.1015—0960-0443. SSA uses the information on Form SSA-832-U3/C3 to document whether an individual's disability benefits should be terminated or continued on the basis of his/her impairment. The respondents are State DDS employees adjudicating Title II and Title XVI disability claims. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 200,753. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 100,376 hours. 10. Employer Report of Special Wage Payments—20 CFR 404.428-404.429—0960-0565. SSA gathers the information on Form SSA-131 to prevent earnings-related overpayments to Social Security beneficiaries, and to avoid erroneous withholding of benefits. The respondents are employers who provide special wage payment verification. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 30,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden of Response:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Average Burden:* 10,000 hours. Dated: January 11, 2008. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E8-810 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2008-0036] RIN 2120-AF90 Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary and Federal Aviation Administration. ACTION: Notice of proposed amendment to policy statement. SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Department of Transportation (“Department”) “Policy Regarding the Establishment of Airport Rates and Charges” published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 1996 (“1996 Rates and Charges Policy”). This action proposes three amendments to the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy (two modifications and one clarification). These amendments are intended to provide greater flexibility to operators of congested airports to use landing fees to provide incentives to air carriers to use the airport at less congested times or to use alternate airports to meet regional air service needs. Any charges imposed on international operations must also comply with the international obligations of the United States. DATES: Send your comments on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-XXXXX] using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the notice and comment process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry L. Molar, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-3831; facsimile:
(202)267-5302; *e-mail: barry.molar@faa.gov;* or Charles Erhard, Manager, Airport Compliance Division, AAS-400, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, *telephone:*
(202)267-3187; *facsimile:*
(202)267-5769; e-mail: *charles.erhard@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The Department of Transportation invites interested persons to join in this notice and comment process by filing written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with Department personnel about this proposal. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section. *Privacy Act:* Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets. This includes the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://regulations.gov.* Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal because of the comments we receive. If you want the Department to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR Part 7. Availability of Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1)Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal ( *http://www.regulations.gov/search* );
(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies* ; or
(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html* . You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this proceeding. Authority for This Proceeding This notice is published under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part B, Chapter 471, Section 47129 of Title 49 United States Code. Under subsection
(b)of this section, the Secretary of Transportation is required to publish publishing policy statements establishing standards or guidelines the Secretary will use in determining the reasonableness of airport fees charged to airlines under Section 47129. Background This action proposes to amend the Department of Transportation (“Department”) “Policy Regarding the Establishment of Airport Rates and Charges” published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 1996, (“1996 Rates and Charges Policy”). Portions of the policy were subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in *Air Transport Ass'n of America* v. *DOT,* 119 F.3d 38, amended by 129 F.3d 625 (DC Cir. 1997). This action proposes three amendments to the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy (two modifications and one clarification). These amendments are intended to provide greater flexibility to operators of congested airports to use landing fees to provide incentives to air carriers to use the airport at less congested times or to use alternate airports to meet regional air service needs. Any charges imposed on international operations must also comply with the international obligations of the United States. First, this notice proposes to clarify the policy by explicitly acknowledging the ability of airport operators to establish a two-part landing fee structure consisting of both an operation charge and a weight-based charge, in lieu of the standard weight-based charge. Such a two-part fee would serve as an incentive for carriers to use larger aircraft and increase the number of passengers served with the same or fewer operations. Second, this action proposes to expand the ability of the operator of a congested airport to include in the airfield fees of a congested airport a portion of the airfield costs of other, underutilized airports owned and operated by the same proprietor. Third, this action proposes to permit the operator of a congested airport to charge users of a congested airport a portion of the cost of airfield projects under construction. Currently, costs of new or reconstructed airfield facilities may be included in airfield charges only when the new or reconstructed facilities are completed and in use, unless carriers at the airport agree otherwise. This proposed modification would also permit the operator of a congested airport to include in the rate base the costs of projects under construction. This notice proposes two alternatives. The first would permit the costs to be included in the rate base only during periods when the airport experiences congestion. At some airports, such as Chicago O'Hare or New York LaGuardia, this could occur throughout the normal operating day. The second would permit these costs to be included in the rate base of the congested airport at all times. Because the latter two proposed amendments would apply only at congested airports, this notice also proposes to add a definition of “congested airport” in the Applicability section. Legal Requirements for Airport Rates and Charges All commercial service airports operating in the United States and most other airports that are open to the public have accepted grants for airport development under the Airport Improvement Program, authorized in Title 49 of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, Part B, Chapter 471. Under § 47107, in exchange for receiving grant funds, airport operators must give a variety of assurances regarding the operation of their airports and the implementation of grant funded projects. Among other things, airport operators pledge to make the airport “available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination.” 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(1). This obligation encompasses the obligation to establish reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory fees and charges for aeronautical use of the airfield. Section 47129 authorizes the Department to review the reasonableness of airport fees charged to air carriers, upon a complaint or request for determination and a finding of a significant dispute, and directs the publication of policies or guidelines for determining reasonable fees and development of expedited hearing procedures to resolve airport fee disputes. The Department's procedures applicable to proceeding concerning airport fees are contained in Subpart F, Title 14 CFR 302.601—§ 302.609. The Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges The Department published the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy in the **Federal Register** at 61 FR 31994 on June 21, 1996. The statement of policy was required by section 113 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305 (August 23, 1994), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 47129. The publication of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy followed publication of a notice of proposed policy (59 FR 29874, June 9, 1994). That proposal predated enactment of section 47129. After enactment of section 47129, the Department published a supplemental notice of proposed policy (59 FR 51585, October 12, 1994); an Interim Policy (60 FR 6906, February 3, 1995); and a further supplemental notice of proposed policy (60 FR 47102, September 8, 1995). On behalf of its member airlines, the Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)and the City of Los Angeles, operator of Los Angeles International Airport, challenged elements of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court vacated portions of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy in *Air Transport Ass'n of America* v. *DOT,* 119 F3d 38, amended by 129 F.3d 625 (DC Cir. 1997). The 1996 Rates and Charges Policy specified that, unless otherwise agreed to by an airport user, fees for airfield use must be based on costs calculated using the historic cost accounting
(HCA)methodology. 1996 Rates and Charges Policy, paras. 2.2, 2.4, 2.5.1. For other airport facilities and services, however, the airport proprietor was free to use any reasonable methodology to determine fees, if justified and applied on a consistent basis. 1996 Rates and Charges Policy, para. 2.6. Petitioners in the court case challenged the disparate treatment of airfield fees and other fees. The court determined that this distinction had not been adequately justified. 119 F.3d at 44. At the Department's request, the Court vacated only the specific provisions of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy that petitioners challenged as implementing that distinction. 129 F.3d at 625. Since the court's ruling, the Department has addressed significant airport-airline fee disputes through case-by-case adjudication. The Department's decisions are informed by the statutory limitations imposed on airport fees. One limitation derives from requirements of the airport improvement program grant assurances, 49 U.S.C. 47107. In particular, a federally assisted airport sponsor must give the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA certain assurances, including the assurance that the airport will be available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. The other limitation arises from the proprietor's exception to the Anti-Head Tax Act, which allows the airport sponsor to collect only reasonable rental charges, landing fees, and other service charges from aircraft operators for the use of airport facilities. Our past cases have established some guidelines for our analysis of fees challenged by airlines. Our cases have examined fees and fee methodologies that we considered reasonable as well as those we considered not to be reasonable. See *Miami International Airport Rates Proceeding,* Order 97-3-26 (March 19, 1997), *aff'd sub nom., Air Canada* v. *DOT* , 148 f.3D 1142 (DC Cir. 1998); *Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al.* v. *Los Angeles World Airports,* Order 2007-6-8 (June 15, 2007) ( *LAX III* ), on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Additionally, we have established some guidance on unreasonable airline fees *Second Los Angeles Int'l Airport Rates Proceeding,* Order 95-9-24 (Sept. 22, 1995, ( *LAX II* ), *aff'd sub nom, City of Los Angeles* v. *DOT,* 165 F.3d 972 (DC Cir. 1999); *Brendan Airways, LLC* v. *Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,* Order 2005-6-11 (June 14, 2005), *aff'd in part, Port. Auth. of New York and New Jersey* v. *DOT,* 478 F.3d 21 (DC Cir. 2007). The Secretary has also determined whether or not certain disputed fees were unjustly discriminatory. Brendan Airways, op cit., Order 2005-6-11; *LAX III.* Airport Congestion in the United States Currently, the National Airspace System
(NAS)handles 750 million passengers each year. We expect this number to reach one billion by 2015, and forecasts indicate increases in demand ranging from a factor of two to three by 2025. Market competition spurred by new-entrant, low-cost carriers and the competitive response by legacy airlines have generated much of the increase in air travel demand. Among the trends are new and expanded route networks to lesser-served markets connecting major hubs with regional jet service. The additional service in some cases provides no net increase in seats between origins and destinations but provides more operations in the system with greater numbers of smaller capacity aircraft. The majority of the airports in the NAS have adequate airport capacity with little, if any, delay. Generally, congestion occurs at the largest airports. The 35 busiest airports, known as Operational Evolution Partnership
(OEP)airports, handle approximately 73 percent of the commercial air passenger boardings in the system. Runway construction projects have long served as a primary method to improve capacity. Since fiscal year 2000, thirteen new runways (more than 20 miles of new pavement) have opened at the 35 OEP airports. In addition, six more of the OEP airports have airfield projects under construction (two airfield reconfigurations, three new runways, and one runway extension), which should be commissioned within the next three years. These new runways and airfield reconfigurations involve eighteen of the 35 OEP airports, providing these airports with the potential to accommodate about two million more annual operations. Nevertheless, the experience of summer 2007 shows that congestion is a problem today. Airlines at New York JFK International Airport increased their scheduled operations by 41 percent between March 2006 and August 2007. As a result, the number of arrival delays exceeding one hour increased by 114 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2007, compared to the same period the previous year. During June and July 2007, on-time arrival performance at JFK was only 59 percent. Moreover, delays resulting from operations at New York metropolitan area airports alone can account for up to one-third of the delays throughout the entire national system. The congestion in the New York airspace has ripple effects across the national airspace system, causing flight delays, cancellations, and/or missed connections. These delays impose economic and social costs on airline passengers and shippers; airlines incur extra costs for fuel, flight crews, and schedulers. Delays are likewise beginning to increase at San Francisco. At Chicago O'Hare, the FAA implemented voluntary flight restrictions in 2004 to limit congestion and delays. The reconfiguration of the O'Hare airfield will eventually provide the capacity to overcome congestion. In the short run, however, congestion would be much worse if not for FAA intervention. Most portions of the country have plans and capabilities to meet projected aviation demand. A recent study, *Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future,* conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration as part of the Future Airport Capacity Task
(FACT)2, indicates metropolitan areas and regions along the east and west coasts are experiencing large amounts of growth in population and economic activity that cause chronic congestion. Based on studies and analyses associated with FACT 2, conditions are projected to get worse in the future in these coastal regions, primarily concentrated at various OEP airports. Fourteen of the 35 OEP airports and eight metropolitan areas are forecasted to be capacity-constrained in 2025. Of the fourteen airports identified as capacity-constrained in the study, several are further constrained by conditions, either physical (New York LaGuardia) or environmental (Long Beach-Daugherty Field), that prevent additional runway capacity from being built. To date, even with planned improvements, no single solution to the congestion at these airports has been identified. Aside from adding runway capacity, air traffic operational improvements and airspace redesign are additional measures that have been considered. In addition, even at airports where expansion is possible or planned, the lead-time to bring a planned improvement project from concept to commissioning may be substantial (10-15 years). Until new facilities are completed and put into service, these locations may continue to be plagued by congestion and delays. To adequately prepare to handle the increasing air travel demand in the system, it will be necessary to augment tools available to the local governments which operate these airports to encourage regional aviation assets to be employed to resolve the capacity issues. In areas where the metropolitan areas may be served by more than one commercial service airport, the dispersal or regionalization of traffic can be encouraged by certain financial incentives, not all of which are expressly permitted by the current rates and charges policy. Role of Price in Addressing Congestion One way of addressing congestion of an airport's airside facilities is by the pricing of those facilities. By raising the cost of operating a flight during congested periods, an airport owner/operator can increase the efficient utilization of the airport in a number of ways. First, by charging higher landing fees during periods of peak congestion, the airport proprietor gives aircraft operators the incentive to reschedule their flights to less congested periods or to use secondary airports. The degree to which aircraft operators reschedule will in large part depend on their network structure and access to secondary airports. Second, if airports structure their airfield charges to reflect scarcity by incorporating per-operation charges with weight-based charges, they will provide an incentive for air carriers to use congested airfield facilities more efficiently by increasing the size of aircraft operating during periods of congestion. Third, properly pricing scarce airfield capacity will yield a clearer signal as to the desirability of expansion of capacity at that airfield. Even where expansion is not feasible, the industry and users benefit if adjustment of prices during congested periods increases the efficiency with which congested airfield facilities are used. The proposed actions do not represent true congestion pricing because they do not authorize airport proprietors to set fees to balance demand with capacity without regard to allowable costs of airfield facilities and services. Nevertheless, by enabling proprietors at congested airports to assign additional, but still appropriate, costs to the airfield to better reflect the cost of using congested airfield facilities, these proposed actions should encourage more efficient use of these facilities and encourage feasible capacity expansion. Airport sponsors must assure the Department that the airport is available to the public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. If we adopt the two proposed amendments targeted for congested airports, we expect affected proprietors to implement them in a manner that is consistent with the grant assurance and we expect that the implementation will lead to a more efficient use of the congested facilities Discussion of Proposals General Discussion The three specific proposals do not alter one of the fundamental principles of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy: that reasonable fees must be based on the capital and operating costs of the facilities for which the fees are assessed. Rather, two of the proposals would modify costs that may be reasonably included in the cost base of landing fees at a congested airport. The third would clarify the ability of airports to adopt a “dual-element” landing fee with both a per-operation and weight-based component. This authority exists today for airports with or without congestion. While the presence or absence of congestion may affect how an airport may reasonably implement a dual element-landing fee, as discussed below, the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy is silent on this point. None of the proposed amendments is intended to permit an airport to generate revenues in excess of the allowable costs of providing airfield facilities and services at the congested airport, as defined in accordance with the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy. The effect of each of these modifications would be to allow the airport operator to increase the cost of landing at a congested airport during periods of congestion, even if congestion lasts through much of the day. By raising the costs of the congested facilities, the airport operator would provide an incentive for current or potential aircraft operators to
(1)adjust schedules to operate at less congested times (if they exist);
(2)use less congested secondary or reliever airports to meet regional air service needs; or
(3)use the congested airport more efficiently by up-gauging aircraft. The three proposals are not intended to be mutually exclusive. In other words, if the circumstances justify doing so, an airport proprietor might use a combination of two, or even all three, proposals in setting landing fees during periods of congestion. Any charges imposed on international operations, whether using this proposed flexibility or not, would also have to comply with the international obligations of the United States, including requirements that the charges be just, reasonable, and equitably apportioned among categories of users. Where additions to airport capacity are financially and physically feasible and can be accomplished without undue adverse environmental or social impacts, the Department considers such additions to be the most appropriate long-term actions to address airport congestion and delay. The amendments to the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy proposed in this action are intended to help airports manage available capacity in the short-run, while additions to capacity are being planned and built and to help those airports where capacity expansion is not feasible. Definition of Congested Airport Two of the three proposed revisions would apply only to congested airports. Therefore, this action proposes to add a new subsection E to the Applicability Section of the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy that would define a congested airport. The subsection would establish two categories of congested airports—those meeting the statutory definition of congested airport contained in 49 U.S.C. 47175 or those identified in the report titled “Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007-2025” (May 2007), issued by the Future Airport Capacity Task and commonly referred to as the “FACT 2 Report.” Section 47175 is part of an aviation development streamlining program enacted by Congress in 2003 (Vision-100). That program recognized the significant negative economic impact on our national economy resulting from congestion and delays at our major airports. It gave airport capacity enhancement projects at those airports a national priority status, and authorized an expedited environmental coordination process that would protect the environment while ensuring the economic vitality resulting from the continued growth in aviation. Public Law 108-176, Title III, § 302 (2003). A congested airport is defined as an airport that accounted for at least one percent of all delayed aircraft operations in the Untied States and an airport listed in Table 1 of the FAA's Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001. 49 U.S.C. 47175(2). Under its general authority to manage airspace, and after a comprehensive analysis of current and forecasted traffic, demand, and demographic trends, the FAA published the FACT 2 report identifying airports that are or will be congested at three milestones—2007, 2015 and 2025. It would not be appropriate to permit an airport that is not projected to be congested in 2025 to rely on provisions applicable to congested airports in setting fees today. Therefore, the proposed amendment would also exclude airports projected to be congested in 2025 for the first time from the scope of the definition. Two-Part Landing Fees As noted, although most airports rely on a single element weight-based landing fee, the use of a weight-based landing fee is not required. This issue was squarely addressed in the Department's decision in the Massport Pace case, *Investigation into Massport's Landing Fees,* Opinion and Order, FAA Docket 13-88-2 (December 22, 1988), *aff'd New England Legal Foundation* v. *Department of Transportation,* 883 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1989). In that case, the Department did not determine that Massport's two-part landing fee for Boston Logan Airport was unreasonable, *per se.* Rather, the Department concluded that “landing fee structures that vary from the traditional weight-based approach are permissible so long as the approach adopted reasonably allocates costs to the appropriate users on a rational and economically justified basis.” Opinion and Order at 11. The Department found the landing fee to be unreasonable because it failed to meet this standard for allocating costs. *Id.* This decision followed a previous ruling in *AOPA* v. *PANYNJ,* 305 F. Supp 93 (E.D.N.Y. 1969), upholding a minimum take-off fee (essentially a per-operation charge) imposed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey at Newark, LaGuardia and Kennedy airports. The proposed amendment would explicitly acknowledge the ability of an airport to establish a two-part landing fee. The amendment would add a new paragraph 2.1.4, in the section titled “Fair and Reasonable Fees,” stating that fair and reasonable fees may include a two-part landing fee consisting of a per-operation charge and a weight-based charge, so long as the two-part fee reasonably allocates costs to the appropriate users on a rational and economically justified basis. This provision would apply to any airport. However, the presence of congestion and the potential to serve more individual travelers if larger aircraft are used in the limited number of operations available, would be the most obvious circumstance for the justification of a dual component fee. Carriers may have many reasons to serve routes with smaller aircraft—regional jets or even turboprops. Smaller aircraft may have lower operating costs or allow the carrier to offer more frequent service economically. However, operations of smaller aircraft during periods of airport congestion reduce the efficiency of the airport. First, it simply takes more operations to move the same number of people to and from the airport. Second, these aircraft may have slower speeds on approach to and departure from the airport than larger jets. Also, they may require larger separation distances from large jet aircraft than other large jets. A purely weight-based landing fee provides no disincentive, and may actually provide an incentive, for carriers to operate smaller aircraft. The landing fee for small aircraft will be substantially lower than the fee for a larger aircraft. If an airport assesses a per-operation charge as a component of the landing fee, the cost of operating a smaller aircraft will increase, and the cost per seat of operating smaller aircraft will increase. The proposed amendment would make it clear that during periods of congestion the airport proprietor may take the presence of congestion into account in determining the proportion of airfield costs to be recovered from the per-operation charge, so long as the combination of the two elements do not generate revenues in excess of the allowable costs of the airfield. The flaw with the Massport “PACE” fee was that Massport justified the per operations fee on the basis of congestion, yet applied it at all times, even when congestion was not present. Opinion and Order at 9. For a per operation fee imposed during times when congestion might not be present, the per-operation charge would need to be justified on other settled principles of cost allocation. Costs of Facilities Under Construction The proposed action would amend the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy by replacing paragraph 2.5.3, which was vacated by the court of appeals, with a new paragraph addressing charges for facilities under construction. The paragraph vacated by the court specified that with limited exceptions for land acquired for future development, costs of airfield facilities not yet built and operating could not be included in the rate base of the airfield unless agreed to by airfield users. The court's decision to vacate this paragraph did not necessarily represent a determination that the provision was erroneous, per se. Rather, as noted, the court identified the provision as one that was intimately connected to the 1996 Rates and Charges Policy's erroneous distinction between airfield fees and fees for other facilities. The court's decision did not vacate the principle that airfield fees are limited to an amount that recovers the costs of operating and maintaining the airfield. One of the fundamental principles of this “cost of service” approach to setting fees is the principle that only the cost of facilities “used and useful” by the rate-payers may be included in the rate-base. (A. Priest, 1 Principles of Public Utility Regulation 174, 178 (1969); J. Bonbright, *Principles of Public Utility Rates* 178 (1961); S. Breyer, *Regulation and Its Reform* 40 (1982); *City and County of Denver* v. *Continental Air Lines, Inc.,* 712 F. Supp. 834, D.CO. (1989)). The vacated paragraph 2.5.3 represented the application of this principle, which is still accepted practice in “cost of service” fee setting. The Department has applied this principle only once in a fee dispute adjudication, finding that an airport may reasonably include, in its landing fee, a debt service charge for uncompleted capital projects, since the projects were expected to be completed during the year in which the charges were made. *Second Los Angeles International Airport Rates Proceeding,* DOT Order 95-12-33 (Dec. 22, 1995). With that said, exceptions to the principle that the costs of facilities not yet built and operating may not be included in the rate base have been recognized in unusual circumstances ( *e.g.* , *Consumer Protection Board* v. *Public Service Commission,* 78 A.D. 2d 65, 434 N.Y. Supp. 2d 820, 822
(1980)(inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base is an extraordinary remedy); *Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.* v. *FERC,* 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985) (decision to allow construction work in progress in rate base is consistent with the “used and useful” principle)). The proposed amendment would represent a modest departure from this principle. It would permit the operator of a congested airport to incorporate the costs of airfield facilities under construction (including costs associated with reconstructing facilities) into the landing fee. Two approaches are being considered, and we solicit comment on each. Under the first approach, the costs of facilities under construction could be included only during periods when the airport experiences congestion. Under the second approach, the costs could be included at the congested airport throughout the day. Any costs recovered for principal and interest during the construction period would have to be deducted from the amount later capitalized and amortized for recovery in the rate-base after the facility is put into use. To qualify for inclusion, the facilities would need to be under construction, so that availability of the facilities for use would not be speculative. All planning and environmental reviews would need to have been completed, a financing plan developed, and financing arranged. Once construction is under way, the risk that current users will not benefit from the facility in the foreseeable future is reduced or eliminated if the user remains at the airport. In addition, allowing the airport proprietor to begin early recovery of capital and interest carrying costs of the facility during construction would reduce the long-term costs of the project by reducing the amount of financing costs incurred during the construction period that would otherwise be capitalized and added to the rate base. In any event, it would not increase the total costs of the project passed on to carriers, and it could hasten the arrival of capacity expansions which benefit the carriers by reducing future congestion. The proposed amendment would also direct international airports intending to charge for projects under construction to consult the International Civil Aviation Organization Document 9562, *Airport Economics Manual,* Second Edition, Attachment 6. This document sets forth internationally accepted principles for charging airport users for projects under construction. This modification would allow the airport proprietor to raise the cost of using congested airfield facilities during periods of congestion or alternatively during all periods of the day in the near term. The increased cost in turn would provide additional financial incentives to users to consider alternatives to using the airfield when congestion is present, including shifting operations to off-peak periods or to less congested airports that also serve the market area of the congested airport, or to serving the airfield more efficiently such as with up-gauged aircraft. Including Costs of Secondary Airports in the Rate-Base of a Congested Airport The 1996 Rates and Charges Policy permits, in paragraph 2.5.4, the operator of an airport to include in the rate base of that airport costs of another airport currently in use if three conditions are met:
(1)The two airports have the same proprietor;
(2)the second airport is currently in use; and
(3)the costs of the second airport to be included in the first airport's rate-base are reasonably related to the aviation benefits that the second airport provides or is expected to provide to the aeronautical users of the first airport. Subparagraph
(a)further provides that the third condition will be presumed to be satisfied if the second airport is designated as a reliever airport to the first in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The proposed action would amend subparagraph
(a)to add another category of airports to the presumption—those that the FAA has designated as secondary airports serving cities, metropolitan areas, or regions served by congested airports. FAA has identified these airports and tracks development at these airports in the FAA strategic plan or “Flight Plan.” The current list of secondary airports is included as an appendix to this notice. The FAA will post the current list of designated secondary airports on its website upon publication of a final amendment to the policy statement and will keep it up to date. The proposed action would also add a new subparagraph
(e)stating that the proprietor of a congested airport may consider the presence of congestion when determining the share of the airfield costs of the secondary airport to be included in the rate base of the congested airport during periods of congestion. In no event would the airport operator be allowed to generate more revenue from airfield charges imposed at the two airports than the costs of operating the two airfields. The proposed action would provide incentives to aircraft operators to shift service away from congested times at congested airports in two ways. First, it would raise the cost of operating at the congested airport during times of congestion. Second, by adding costs of the secondary airport to the rate base of the first airport, the amendment would reduce the costs of the secondary airport remaining to be recovered from landing fees imposed at the secondary airport. Thus the costs of serving the region through a secondary airport would go down. These proposed modifications to our rates and charges policy do not affect an airport's requirement to meaningfully consult with airline users before increasing fees, charging new fees, or changing fee methodologies. “Adequate information” should be provided by the airport to permit aeronautical users to evaluate the proprietor's justification for the charge and to assess the reasonableness of the charge. Each party should give “due regard” to the views of the other and the airport should consider the effects of fee changes on the users and the users should consider the financial needs of the airports. A “good faith effort” to reach agreement should be made. Additionally, the Department encourages the airport operator to provide certain historic financial information for the airport, economic, financial and/or legal justification for change in fee methodology or level of fees, traffic information, and planning and forecasting information. 1 1 DOT Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 61 Fed. Reg. 32018-32019 and 32022 (1996). In the context of considering a fee dispute complaint under 49 U.S.C. 47129, the Department has stated that “one of the important goals in the Policy Statement is the encouragement of airport-airline negotiations in the establishment of new fees or fee increases” and it encouraged: All airports to comply with their obligations under the Policy Statement and applicable bilateral aviation agreements to engage in meaningful consultations with carriers in advance of increasing fees or establishing new fees. We expect airports to justify their fees and to exchange appropriate financial information to enable the carriers to fully evaluate those proposed fees. *British Airways PLC and Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited* v. *The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,* Order 2000-5-23 at 10. (May 24, 2000). The Proposed Amendment Because of the foregoing, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend the Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, published at 61 FR 31994 (June 21, 1996) as follows: Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges Applicability of Policy 1. Add a new subsection E, Congested Airports to read as follows: E. Congested Airports The Department considers a congested airport to be—
(1)An airport meeting the definition of congested airport in 49 U.S.C. 47175; or
(2)An airport identified as congested by the Federal Aviation Administration in the report of the Future Airport Capacity Task entitled *Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future* (FACT 2 Report), or any update to that report that the FAA may publish from time-to-time, except for airports that will not become congested until 2025. Fair and Reasonable Fees 2. Amend subsection 2.1 by adding a new paragraph 2.1.4 to read as follows: 2.1.4 An airport proprietor may impose a two-part landing fee consisting of a per-operation charge and a weight-based charge provided that
(1)the two-part fee reasonably allocates costs to users on a rational and economically justified basis; and
(2)the total revenues from the two-part landing fee do not exceed the allowable costs of the airfield. The operator of a congested airport may consider the presence of airfield congestion when determining the portion of allowable airfield costs to be allocated to the per operation charge during periods of congestion 3. Add a new paragraph 2.5.3 to read as one of the following two options: Option One “2.5.3. The proprietor of a congested airport may include in the rate-base used to determine airfield charges during periods of congestion a portion of the costs of airfield projects under construction so long as
(1)all planning and environmental approvals have been obtained for the projects;
(2)the proprietor has obtained financing for the projects; and
(3)construction has commenced on the projects. “(a) The airport proprietor must deduct from the total costs of the projects any principal and interest collected during the period of construction in determining the amount of project costs to be capitalized and amortized once the project is commissioned and put in service. “(b) The airport proprietor should consult the International Civil Aviation Organization Document 9562, *Airport Economics Manual,* Second Edition, Attachment 6 before taking action to include costs of a project under construction in the rate-base of an airport with international air service.”; Option Two “2.5.3. The proprietor of a congested airport may include in the rate-base used to determine airfield charges a portion of the costs of airfield projects under construction so long as
(1)all planning and environmental approvals have been obtained for the projects;
(2)the proprietor has obtained financing for the projects; and
(3)construction has commenced on the projects. “(a) The airport proprietor must deduct from the total costs of the projects any principal and interest collected during the period of construction in determining the amount of project costs to be capitalized and amortized once the project is commissioned and put in service. “(b) The airport proprietor should consult the International Civil Aviation Organization Document 9562, *Airport Economics Manual,* Second Edition, Attachment 6 before taking action to include costs of a project under construction in the rate-base of an airport with international air service.” 4. Revise paragraph 2.5.4(a) to read as follows:
(a)Element no. 3 above will be presumed to be satisfied if
(1)the other airport is designated as a reliever airport for the first airport in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (“NPIAS”); or
(2)the first airport is congested and the other airport has been designated by the FAA as a secondary airport serving the community, metropolitan area, or region served by the first airport. b. Add a new subparagraph
(e)to read as follows:
(e)The proprietor of a congested airport may consider the presence of airfield congestion at the first airport when determining the portion of the airfield costs of the other airport to be paid by the users of the first airport during periods of congestion, so long as the total airfield revenue recovered from the users of both airports do not exceed the total allowable costs of the two airports combined. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2008. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of Transportation. Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. [FR Doc. E8-815 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary. ACTION: Notice to modify a system of records. SUMMARY: DOT proposes to modify a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. The system is DOT's Docket Management System (DMS), which is being modified to reflect:
(1)Incorporation in the new Government-wide Federal DMS;
(2)relocation of DOT's Headquarters Building (HQ), in which DMS is located; and
(3)new name of the organizational entity of which DMS is a part, and its location in the new DOT HQ. This system would not duplicate any other DOT system of records. EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice will be effective, without further notice, on February 26, 2008, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received by the public. Comments must be received by February 19, 2008 to be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Habib Azarsina, Acting Departmental Privacy Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590 or *habib.azarsina@dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Habib Azarsina, Acting Departmental Privacy Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590; telephone 202.366.1965, or *habib.azarsina@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOT system of records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, as proposed to be modified, is available from the above mentioned address and appears below: DOT/ALL 14 System name: Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). Security classification: Unclassified, non-sensitive. System location: The system is located in U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Information Services, Docket Operations, M-30, New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Individuals who participate in proceedings at DOT that are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and who provide information about their identities. These include proceedings conducted by DOT and by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG)and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Categories of records in the system: DOT, USCG, and TSA rulemaking and related documents issued in informal rulemakings, and public comments thereon; non-rulemaking and related documents, and public comments thereon; in formal rulemakings, motions, petitions, complaints, and related documents and formal responses thereto. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.* Purpose(s): To facilitate involvement of the public in APA and related proceedings. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: See Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Electronically on a publicly-accessible website. Retrievability: Documents are retrievable through FDMS by name of individual submitting comment, and by docket number. Safeguards: Records are freely available to anyone. Retention and disposal: Paper copies are returned to the originating office upon transfer to electronic medium. Electronic version is retained indefinitely at the discretion of DOT, USCG, or TSA, as appropriate. System manager(s) and address: U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Program Manager, Office of Information Services, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Notification procedure: Same as “System Manager.” Record access procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Contesting record procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Record source categories: Individuals participating in DOT, USCG, or TSA APA proceedings who provide information about their identities. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. Habib Azarsina, Acting Departmental Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E8-785 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0082] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection: Motor Carrier Identification Report AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to revise an ICR entitled, “Motor Carrier Identification Report,” which is used to identify FMCSA regulated entities, help prioritize the agency's activities, aid in assessing the safety outcomes of those activities, and for statistical purposes. On November 7, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. No comments were received. DATES: Please send your comments by February 19, 2008. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0082. You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Delores Vaughn, Transportation Specialist, Office of Information Technology, Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone Number:
(202)366-9409; e-mail address: *delores.vaughn@dot.gov* . Office hours are from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Motor Carrier Identification Report. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0013. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently-approved information collection. *Respondents:* Motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 472,470. *Estimated Time per Response:* To complete Form MCS-150—20 minutes; and for Form MCS-150A—9 minutes. To complete Form MCS-150B (HM Permit Application)—6 minutes for interstate carriers that have already completed the Form MCS-150; and for intrastate carriers that have never completed a Form MCS-150—they will need about 16 minutes to complete the permit renewal. *Expiration Date:* January 31, 2008. *Frequency of Response:* One time for Form MCS-150A; biennially for MCS-150 and MCS-150B. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 119,270 hours [108,825 hours for Form MCS-150 + 10,305 hours for Form MCS-150A + 140 hours for Form MCS-150B = 119,270 hours]. *Background:* Title 49 U.S.C. 504(b)(2) provides the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require carriers, lessors, associations, or classes of them to file annual, periodic, and special reports containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary. The Secretary may also prescribe the form of records required to be prepared or compiled and the time period during which records must be preserved (See §§ 504(b)(1) and (d)). FMCSA will use this data to administer its safety programs by establishing a database of entities that are subject to its regulations. This database necessitates that these entities notify the FMCSA of their existence. For example, under 49 CFR 390.19(a), FMCSA requires all motor carriers beginning operations to file a Form MCS-150 entitled, “Motor Carrier Identification Report.” This report is filed by all motor carriers conducting operations in interstate or international commerce within 90 days after beginning operations. It asks the respondent to provide the name of the business entity that owns and controls the motor carrier operation, address and telephone of principal place of business, assigned identification number(s), type of operation, types of cargo usually transported, number of vehicles owned, term leased and trip leased, driver information, and certification statement signed by an individual authorized to sign documents on behalf of the business entity. The Department of Transportation
(DOT)and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (DOT Appropriations Act) (Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833, December 18, 2001) directed the agency to implement section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, December 9, 1999) by issuing an interim final rule
(IFR)to ensure that new entrant motor carriers are knowledgeable about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and standards. The IFR was published on May 13, 2002 (67 FR 31983). The Form MCS-150A associated with this rule is entitled, “Safety Certification for Application for U.S. DOT Number,” and is used to help ensure that new entrants are knowledgeable about the Federal motor carrier safety regulations and standards before being granted registration authority to operate in interstate commerce (Intrastate carriers are *not* considered new entrants since they do not operate in interstate commerce; and thus do not need to complete or file the Form MCS-150A.). Under the Form MCS-150A, as required by 49 CFR 385.305, the new entrant must certify that it has a system(s) in place to ensure compliance with applicable requirements covering driver qualifications, hours-of-service, controlled substance and alcohol testing, vehicle condition, accident monitoring and hazardous materials
(HM)transportation. The certification reminds the new entrant of its statutory and regulatory responsibilities, which if neglected or violated, may subject the applicant to civil penalties and lead to the revocation of the new entrant registration. On June 30, 2004, the agency issued another final rule entitled, “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits,” (69 FR 39350) which required all HM carriers (both interstate and intrastate) to complete and file the Form MCS-150B entitled, “Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application,” to obtain a safety permit to transport hazardous materials. The safety program under 49 CFR 390.19(a) also requires all HM permitted carriers to complete Form MCS-150B in place of the current Form MCS-150 to “renew” both their permit and their DOT numbers according to the DOT number renewal schedule. Accordingly, FMCSA seeks to revise this currently-approved information collection to update the records and forms associated with its safety programs identified above; and to identify the regulated entities currently engaged in these activities. FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR on November 7, 2007. No comments were received in response to this notice. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: January 10, 2008. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-793 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0074] Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection: Share the Road Safely Outreach Program Assessment AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. The proposed ICR will be used to collect information on commercial motor vehicle
(CMV)and passenger car drivers' awareness of the Share the Road Safely Outreach Program safety messages and activities. On September 11, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. The Agency received one comment on the ICR. DATES: Please submit your comments by February 19, 2008. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference DOT Docket Number FMCSA-2007-0074. You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Ronk, Program Manager, FMCSA, Office of Outreach and Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:
(202)366-1072; or e-mail *brian.ronk@dot.gov* . Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Share the Road Safely Outreach Program Assessment. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-XXXX. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Respondents:* Public/licensed passenger car drivers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1500. *Estimated Time per Response:* The estimated average burden per response is 10 minutes. *Expiration Date:* N/A. This is a new information collection request. *Frequency of Response:* This information collection will occur twice within the three year effective period of the OMB clearance; once in the initial year of approval and again two years following the initial data collection. *Estimated Average Total Annual Burden:* 167 hours [1,500 respondents × 10 minutes/60 minutes per response × 2 telephone interviews/3 year ICR approval timeframe = 167]. Background The purpose of this study is to assess the awareness of licensed drivers (both CMV and passenger car) regarding Share the Road Safely
(STRS)messages and activities. The study will assist FMCSA in developing future STRS campaign messages and identifying target audiences and distribution strategies. The data will be collected through a telephone survey. Results of the study will not be published in the **Federal Register** , but used for internal research purposes by FMCSA to assess its outreach activities and identify additional opportunities to help raise the public's awareness of driving safely in, or around, large trucks and vehicles. A follow-up survey will be conducted two years after the initial data collection and compared against the results from the baseline assessment, then the IC will continue every two years thereafter. FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR on September 11, 2007. The Agency received one comment regarding the need for it to develop and enforce more rigorous standards on the trucking industry. The commenter asserts that a program like “Share the Road Safely” is mind-boggling when the agency continues to let unsafe trucks travel on our nation's highways, license one-eyed drivers and those who submit spurious statements to support registration. FMCSA responded to the comment citing to section 4127 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; Aug. 10, 2005) which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to conduct an outreach and education program to be administered by the Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Agency affirmed the writer's concern about truck safety on our Nation's roadways and explained that the intent of the STRS program is to educate the public on how to prevent crashes, injuries and fatalities when sharing the road safely with large trucks, buses, and other types of vehicles. The FMCSA response also stressed that the STRS program assessment study is part of an effort to establish baseline data to determine the program's effectiveness. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated information collection burden;
(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the information collected. Issued on: January 10, 2008. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-794 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0075] Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection: Household Goods Consumer Information Program Assessment Study AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for information. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. The intent of the ICR is to collect information on recent interstate household goods shippers' (consumers) awareness of the Household Goods
(HHG)Consumer Information Program messages and activities. On September 26, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. One comment was received. DATES: Please send your comments by February 19, 2008. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0075. You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Ronk, Program Manager, FMCSA, Office of Outreach and Development. Telephone:
(202)366-1072; or e-mail *brian.ronk@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Household Goods Consumer Information Program Assessment Study. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-XXXX. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Respondents:* Public/consumers who have moved household goods from one State to a different State in the U.S. (Interstate Household Goods Shippers). *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1500. *Estimated Time per Response:* The estimated average burden per response is 15 minutes. *Expiration Date:* N/A. This is a new information collection. *Frequency of Response:* This information collection will occur twice within the three year effective period of the OMB clearance; once in the initial year of approval and again two years following the initial data collection. *Estimated Average Total Annual Burden:* 250 hours [1,500 respondents × 15 minutes/60 minutes per response × 2 telephone interviews/3 year ICR approval timeframe = 250]. Background The purpose of this study is to quantify and assess consumer awareness of the Household Goods
(HHG)Consumer Information Program. The study will determine the interstate moving public's recognition or knowledge of the Program's activities or messages, such as the “Protect Your Move” campaign. The data will be collected through a telephone survey. Results of the study will not be published, but used for internal research purposes by FMCSA in developing future HHG campaign materials, identifying target audiences, and determining distribution strategies to provide better consumer information to the public. It will also serve as a baseline for future program evaluations or assessments. A follow-up telephone survey will be conducted two years after the initial data collection and compared against the results from baseline assessment. FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR on September 26, 2007. One comment was received regarding the need for the Agency to focus on problems that have been reported instead of conducting a data collection effort. FMCSA responded to the comment explaining the need for the study and affirmed the writer's concern about the safe and reliable delivery of a consumer's household goods. The FMCSA's response also explained the goal of the agency's Household Goods
(HHG)Consumer Information Program. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: January 10, 2008. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-795 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0576] Agency Information Collection (Certificate of Affirmation of Enrollment Agreement—Correspondence Course) Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through www.Regulations.gov or to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0576” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)461-7485, FAX
(202)273-0443 or e-mail *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0576.” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Certificate of Affirmation of Enrollment Agreement—Correspondence Course (Under Chapters 20, 32, & 35, Title 38 U.S.C., Section 903 of PL 96-342, or Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C.), VA Form 22-1999c. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0576. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Claimants enrolled in a correspondence training course complete and submit VA Form 22-1999c to the correspondence school to affirm the enrollment agreement contract. The certifying official at the correspondence school submit the form and the enrollment certification to VA for processing. VA uses the information to determine if the claimant signed and dated the form during the ten-day reflection period deciding whether to enroll in the correspondence course and if such course is suitable to his or her abilities and interest. In addition, the claimant must sign VA Form 22-1999c on or after the twelfth day the enrollment agreement was dated. VA will not pay educational benefits for correspondence training that was completed nor accept the affirmation agreement that was signed and dated on or before the enrollment agreement date. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on October 16, 2007, at pages 58737-58738. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 48 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 3 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 952. Dated: January 3, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-755 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0659] Agency Information Collection (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD) Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0659” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)461-7485, FAX
(202)273-0443 or e-mail *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0659.” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Titles:* a. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA Form 21-0781. b. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD)Secondary to Personal Assault, VA Form 21-0781a. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0659. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Veterans seeking compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder and need VA's assistance in obtaining evidence from military records and other sources to substantiate their claims of in-service stressors must complete VA Forms 21-0781 and 21-0791a. Veterans who did not serve in combat or were not a prisoner of war and are claiming compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder due to in-service stressors, he or she must provide credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on October 11, 2007, at pages 57997-57998. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* a. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA Form 21-0781—16,800 hours. b. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD)Secondary to Personal Assault, VA Form 21-0781a—980 hours. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* a. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA Form 21-0781—70 minutes. b. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD)Secondary to Personal Assault, VA Form 21-0781a—70 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* a. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA Form 21-0781—14,400. b. Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD)Secondary to Personal Assault, VA Form 21-0781a—840. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-764 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0657] Agency Information Collection (Conflicting Interests Certification for Proprietary Schools) Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0657” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)461-7485, FAX
(202)273-0443 or e-mail *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0657.” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Conflicting Interests Certification for Proprietary Schools (Under Chapters 30, 31, 32, and 35, Title 38, U.S.C.; Chapters 1606 and 1607, Title 10, U.S.C.; Sections 901 or 903 of Public Law 96-342, National Call to Service Provision of Public Law 107-314 and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), VA Form 22-1919. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0657. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA pays education benefits to veterans and other eligible person pursuing approved programs of education. Employees of VA and State approving agency enrolled in a proprietary profit school are prohibit from owning any interest in the school. Educational assistance provided to veterans or eligible person based on their enrollment in proprietary school and who are officials authorized to signed certificates of enrollment are also prohibit from receiving educational assistance based on their enrollment. Propriety schools officials complete VA Form 22-1919 certifying that the institution and enrollees do not have any conflict of interest. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on October 16, 2007, at pages 58736-58737. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 25 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 150. Dated: January 3, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-765 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0390] Proposed Information Collection (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to determine a surviving spouse or child's eligibility to REPS (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors) benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0390” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application of Surviving Spouse or Child for REPS Benefits (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors), VA Form 21-8924. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0390. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Survivors of deceased veteran's complete VA Form 21-8924 to apply for Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors
(REPS)benefits. REPS benefits is payable to certain surviving spouses and children of veterans who died in service prior to August 13, 1981 or who died as of a result of a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated prior to August 13, 1981. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 600 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 20 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* One time. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,800. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-772 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0215] Proposed Information Collection (Request for Information To Make Direct Payment to Child Reaching Majority); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to determine a schoolchild's eligibility to VA death benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0215” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Request for Information to Make Direct Payment to Child Reaching Majority, VA Form Letter 21-863. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0215. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form Letter 21-863 is used to determine a schoolchild's continued eligibility to death benefits and eligibility to receive direct payment at the age of majority. Death pension or dependency and indemnity compensation is paid to an eligible veteran's child when there is not an eligible surviving spouse and the child is between the ages of 18 and 23 is attending school. Until the child reaches the age of majority, payment is made to a custodian or fiduciary on behalf of the child. An unmarried schoolchild, who is not incompetent, is entitled to begin receiving direct payment on the age of majority. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* One-time. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-773 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0179] Proposed Information Collection (Application for Change of Permanent Plan (Medical)); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to establish eligibility to change insurance plans. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to OMB Control No. 2900-0179 in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Change of Permanent Plan (Medical) (Change to a policy with a lower reserve value), VA Form 29-1549. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0179. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The form is used by the insured to establish his/her eligibility to change insurance plans from a higher reserve to a lower reserve value. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 14 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 30 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 28. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-775 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0139] Proposed Information Collection (Notice—Payment Not Applied); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to this notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed determine a claimant's eligibility to reinstate government life insurance. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0139 in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov. * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Notice—Payment Not Applied, VA Form 29-4499a. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0139. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 29-4499a is used by policy holders to reinstate their National Service Life Insurance
(NSLI)policy. The information collected is used to determine the insurer's eligibility for reinstatement to government life insurance. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 300 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 15 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,200. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-777 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0149] Proposed Information Collection (Application for Conversion); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to this notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to convert to a permanent plan of insurance. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0149 in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov. * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Conversion (Government Life Insurance), VA Form 29-0152. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0149. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 29-0152 is completed by insured veterans to convert his/her term insurance to a permanent plan of insurance. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,125 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 15 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,500. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-780 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0159] Proposed Information Collection (Matured Endowment Notification); Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to this notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to determine the disposition of proceeds of a matured endowment policy. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* ; or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0159” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)461-9769 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Matured Endowment Notification, VA Form 29-5767. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0159. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 29-5767 is used to notify the insured that his or her endowment policy has matured. The form also request that the insured elect whether he or she prefer to receive the proceeds in monthly installment or in a combination of cash and monthly installment and to designate a beneficiary(ies) to receive the remaining proceeds. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 2,867 hours. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* 20 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 8,600. Dated: January 7, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-781 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [SGA/DFA-PY 05-05] Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA); Indian and Native American Employment and Training Program SGA AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor. ACTION: Notice: Amendment to SGA/DFA-PY-05-05. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration published a document in the **Federal Register** on January 4, 2008, announcing the availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications
(SGA)for the Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians under section 166 of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA)for Program Years
(PY)2008 and 2009. This notice is an amendment to the SGA and it amends “Announcement Type” and the “Application and Submission” Information section to correct the Funding Opportunity Number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stockton, Grant Officer, Division of Federal Assistance, at
(202)693-3335. Supplementary Information Correction: In the **Federal Register** of January 4, 2008, in FR Doc. E7-25608. On the first page
(883)under the heading, “Announcement Type,” “Reference Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA-PY-05-05” is amended to read, “SFA/DFA PY-07-04.” The third paragraph entitled “Submission Dates and Times” (page 888), “Reference SGA/DFA PY 05-05” is amended to read, “Reference SGA/DFA PY 07-04.” Effective Date: This notice is effective January 17, 2008. Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of January, 2008. James W. Stockton, Grant Officer. [FR Doc. E8-662 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will meet from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. each day as indicated below: February 20-21, 2008—Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, Washington, DC. February 28-29, 2008—Westin Washington, DC City Center Hotel, Washington, DC. The purpose of the Board is to review rehabilitation research and development applications for scientific and technical merit and to make recommendations to the Director, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, regarding their funding. The meetings will be open to the public for the February 20 and February 28, sessions from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. for the discussion of administrative matters, the general status of the program and the administrative details of the review process. The meetings will be closed as follows for the Board's review of research and development applications: February 20—from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. February 21—from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. February 28—from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. February 29—from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The reviews involves oral comments, discussion of site visits, staff and consultant critiques of proposed research protocols, and similar analytical documents that necessitate the consideration of the personal qualifications, performance would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure would also reveal research proposals and research underway which could lead to the loss of these projects to third parties and thereby frustrate future agency research efforts. Thus, the closing is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), and (c)(9)(B) and the determination of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs under sections 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 as amended by section 5(c) of Public Law 94-409. Those who plan to attend the open sessions should contact Terrilynn Carlton, Federal Designated Officer, Portfolio Manager, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (122P), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at
(202)254-0265. Dated: January 10, 2008. By Direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 08-127 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
30 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 20 CFR 255
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 20 CFR 401
  • 20 CFR 404.428-404
  • 49 CFR 7
  • 119 F.3d 38
  • 129 F.3d 625
  • Pub. L. 103-305
  • 165 F.3d 972
  • 478 F.3d 21
  • Pub. L. 108-176
  • 883 F.2d 157
  • 305 F. Supp. 93
  • 712 F. Supp. 834
  • 773 F.2d 327
  • 61 FR 32018
  • 49 CFR 390.19(a)
  • Pub. L. 107-87
  • 115 Stat. 833
  • Pub. L. 106-159
  • 113 Stat. 1748
  • 49 CFR 385.305
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 119 Stat. 1144
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • Pub. L. 96-342
  • Pub. L. 107-314
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 94-409
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78o–4
C.F.R.§ 422.103
C.F.R.§ 404.2035
F. App'x119 F.3d 38
F. App'x129 F.3d 625
F. App'x165 F.3d 972
Cites 55 · 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.