Notices. Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment

27,601 words·~125 min read·/register/2008/01/31/08-426

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION National Science Board; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows: Agency Holding Meeting:

National Science Board, National Science Foundation (NSF). Date and Time: Wednesday, February 6, 2008, at 8:45 a.m.; and Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 9 a.m. Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must report to the NSF visitor desk at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance to receive a visitor's badge. Status: Some portions open, some portions closed. Open Sessions February 6, 2008 8:45 a.m.-9:30 a.m. 9:30 a.m.-10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m. 11:15 a.m.-12 noon 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m.-3:50 p.m.

February 7, 2008 9 a.m.-9:30 a.m. 10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m. 11:15 a.m.-12 noon 1 p.m.-2 p.m. Closed Sessions February 7, 2008 9:30 a.m.-10 a.m. 10 a.m.-10:10 a.m. 10:10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Agency Contact: Dr. Robert E. Webber, *rwebber@nsf.gov,*

(703)292-7000, *http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/.* Matters To Be Discussed: Wednesday, February 6, 2007 CSB Task Force on Cost Sharing Open Session: 8:45 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • Approval of Minutes. • Task Force Chairman's Remarks. • Discussion of Board February 9, 2008 Report to Congress on Cost Sharing Policies at the National Science Foundation. • Discussion of Next Steps for Task Force Study of Cost Sharing. CPP Task Force on Sustainable Energy Open Session: 9:30 a.m.-10:15 a.m. • Approval of Minutes for December 2007 Meeting. • Task Force Co-Chairmen's Remarks. • Discussion of the Task Force Roundtable (February 8, 2008). • Discussion of “The Challenge of Sustainable Energy: A Background Paper for the National Science Board Task Force on Sustainable Energy.” • Discussion of Upcoming Task Force Activities. CPP Subcommittee on Polar Issues Open Session: 10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m. • Approval of December Minutes. • SOPI Chairman's Remarks. • OPP Director's Report. • Planning Towards a Multinational Polar Infrastructure Network. • Antarctic Support Contract Re-bid. • Changing Freshwater Cycle in the Arctic. • Video of the South Pole Station Dedication. Committee on Programs and Plans Open Session: (11:15 a.m.-12 noon) • Transformative Research and Basic Biology Concepts. Open Session: (1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.) • Approval of Minutes. ○ December 5, 2007 Meeting. ○ January 10, 2008 Teleconference. • Committee Chairman's Remarks. • Status Reports: ○ Subcommittee on Polar Issues. ○ Task Force on Sustainable Energy. ○ Task Force on International Science. • Approval of Minutes. ○ Task Force on International Science, December 5, 2007 Meeting. • *Discussion Item:* NSB Report to Congress on Pre-construction Funding and Maintenance and Operations Costs for MREFC projects. • *Discussion Item:* Board Policy on Competition, Recompetition, and Renewal of NSF Awards. Committee on Strategy and Budget Open Session: 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. • Approval of CSB Minutes, December 6, 2007. • Committee Chairman's Remarks. • Status Report: CSB Task Force on Cost Sharing. • Discussion of Limiting Proposals from a Single Institution. • Discussion of the NSF FY 2008 Appropriations and FY 2009 Budget Request. • Discussion of NSF Average Award Size, Duration, and Proposal Success Rate. Executive Committee Open Session: 3:30 p.m.-3:50 p.m. • Approval of Minutes for August 2007. • Executive Committee Chairman's Remarks. • Updates or New Business from Committee Members. Thursday, February 7, 2008 Audit and Oversight Committee Open Session: 9 a.m.-9:30 a.m. • Approval of Minutes of the December 5, 2007 Meeting. • Committee Chairman's Opening Remarks. • Chief Financial Officer's Update. Closed Session: 9:30 a.m.-10 a.m. • Pending Investigations. Plenary Executive Closed Closed Session: 10 a.m.-10:10 a.m. • Approval of December 2007 Minutes. Plenary Closed Closed Session: 10:10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. • Approval of December 2007 Minutes. • Closed Committee Reports. EHR Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators Open Session: 10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m. • Approval of December Minutes. • Chairman's Remarks. • Report on *S&E Indicators 2008* Rollout. • Presentation on *Innovation Measurement: Tracking the State of Innovation in the American Economy.* • *Science and Engineering Indicators 2010.* • Presentation on Electronic *“Digest.”* • Chairman's Summary. Plenary Session Open Session: 11:15 a.m.-12 noon • Approval of December 2007 Minutes. • Resolution to Close March 2008 Meeting. • Chairman's Report. • Director's Report. • Open Committee Reports. Plenary Session Open Session: 1 p.m.-2 p.m. • Outcomes of NSF-Funded Research. Russell Moy, Attorney-Advisor. [FR Doc. E8-1798 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-289] Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated January 8, 2008, from AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, filed pursuant to section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* part 54 (10 CFR part 54), to renew the operating license for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1. Renewal of the license would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for TMI, Unit 1, (DPR-50), expires on April 19, 2014. TMI, Unit 1, is a Pressurized-Water Reactor designed by Babcock & Wilcox that is located near Middletown, PA. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent **Federal Register** notices. Copies of the application are available to the public at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or through the Internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number ML080220207. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . In addition, the application is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html* . Persons who do not have access to the internet or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . A copy of the license renewal application for the TMI, Unit 1, is also available to local residents near the site at the Middletown Public Library, 20 North Catherine St., Middletown, PA 17057, and at the Penn State Harrisburg Library, 351 Olmsted Drive, Middletown, PA 17057. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samson Lee, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-1802 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-016] Unistar Nuclear; Acceptance for Docketing of a Partial Application for Combined License for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 On July 16, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received a partial combined license

(COL)application from UniStar Nuclear (UniStar), dated July 13, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated July 16, August 2, September 11, October 30, and December 14, 2007, and January 14, 2008. The COL application was filed pursuant to section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and Subpart C, “Combined Licenses,” of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), part 52, “License Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The site location is in Lusby, Maryland, and is identified as the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The partial application included the environmental report, final safety analysis report information regarding site suitability, as well as other information required by 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5). A notice of receipt and availability of this application was previously published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 45832) on August 15, 2007. The NRC staff has determined that UniStar has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” specifically 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) regarding submission of a COL application in two parts, and 10 CFR part 52, and that the partial application is acceptable for docketing. The docket number established for CCNPP3 is 52-016. The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the partial COL application. Docketing of the partial COL application does not preclude the NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. The NRC staff will also perform an acceptance review of the second and final part of the application when it is tendered. After completion of the acceptance review for the full application, if it is found acceptable for docketing, the Commission will conduct a hearing in accordance with Subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications,” of 10 CFR part 2 and will receive a report on the COL application from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, “Referral to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).” If the Commission finds that the full COL application meets the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the Commission will issue a COL, in the form and containing conditions and limitations that the Commission finds appropriate and necessary. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission will also prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the NRC staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be included in a future **Federal Register** notice. Finally, the Commission will announce in a future **Federal Register** notice, the opportunity to petition for leave to intervene in the hearing required for this application by 10 CFR 52.85. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. David B. Matthews, Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-1806 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(IAEA)Safeguards Agreement, the NRC must collect information from licensees about their installations and provide it to the IAEA. Licensees of facilities that appear on the U.S. eligible list and have been notified in writing by the NRC are required to complete and submit a Design Information Questionnaire, IAEA Form N-71 (and the appropriate associated IAEA Form) or Form N-91, to provide information concerning their installation for use of the IAEA. Submit, by March 31, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by e-mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-1754 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR part 81, “Standard Specifications for Granting of Patent Licenses.” 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0121. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Applications for licenses are submitted once. Other reports are submitted annually or as other events require. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Applicants for and holders of NRC licenses to NRC inventions. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 1. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 37; however, no applications are anticipated during the next three years. 7. *Abstract:* As specified in 10 CFR part 81, the NRC may grant non-exclusive licenses or limited exclusive licenses to its patented inventions to responsible applicants. Applicants for licenses to NRC inventions are required to provide information which may provide the basis for granting the requested license. In addition, all license holders must submit periodic reports on efforts to bring the invention to a point of practical application and the extent to which they are making the benefits of the invention reasonably accessible to the public. Exclusive license holders must submit additional information if they seek to extend their licenses, issue sublicenses, or transfer the licenses. In addition, if requested, exclusive license holders must promptly supply to the United States Government copies of all pleadings and other papers filed in any patent infringement lawsuit, as well as evidence from proceedings relating to the licensed patent. Submit, by March 31, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by e-mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-1756 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [IA-07-026] In the Matter of: Mr. Luis Fernandez; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) I Mr. Luis Fernandez is the former Security Project Manager for Wackenhut Nuclear Services (Wackenhut) at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Turkey Point) operated by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). FPL holds License No. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) on July 19, 1972, and April 10, 1973, respectively, pursuant to 10 CFR part 50. The licenses authorize the operation of Turkey Point, Units 3 & 4, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Turkey Point is located on the Licensee's site in Florida City, Florida. II In approximately October 2004, a firing pin from a contingency response weapon was discovered to be damaged at FPL's Turkey Point facility. Mr. Fernandez participated in an inquiry of the damage and documented the results of that inquiry in Condition Report

(CR)2004-13573. As the Security Project Manager for WNS at Turkey Point during this time, Mr. Fernandez was knowledgeable of the circumstances and assisted in the preparation and/or approval of the documentation contained in Condition Report

(CR)2004-13573. III In February 2006, the NRC's Office of Investigations

(OI)initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the damaged firing pin, and the NRC was provided a copy of CR 2004-13573. Based on the OI investigation, the NRC reached a preliminary conclusion that Mr. Fernandez' documentation of the circumstances involving the damaged firing pin in CR 2004-13573 was not complete and accurate in all material respects. The NRC also preliminarily concluded that Mr. Fernandez' incomplete or inaccurate documentation of the circumstances was deliberate. As a result, the NRC concluded that Mr. Fernandez was in apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.5, in that his actions caused FPL to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The results of the NRC's preliminary conclusion were provided to Mr. Fernandez by letter dated May 30, 2007. The NRC's letter informed Mr. Fernandez that the NRC was considering the apparent violation for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, and offered Mr. Fernandez a choice to:

(1)Attend a Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference;

(2)provide a written response; or

(3)request ADR with the NRC in an attempt to resolve any disagreement on whether a violation occurred, the appropriate enforcement action, and the appropriate corrective actions. In response, Mr. Fernandez requested ADR to resolve the matter. Mr. Fernandez and the NRC participated in an ADR session in Miami, Florida, on November 9, 2007. Consistent with the purposes of ADR, the parties acknowledged that the session was not for the purposes of reaching any conclusions regarding any facts or circumstances as discussed in the NRC's letter to Mr. Fernandez of May 30, 2007. As the result of the ADR session, Mr. Fernandez and the NRC reached a settlement agreement. The elements of the Agreement in Principle consisted of the following: 1. Mr. Fernandez elaborated on the circumstances concerning his involvement in the drafting of Condition Reports, in support of his view that his actions did not represent deliberate misconduct. Mr. Fernandez acknowledges that CR 2004-13573 was inartfully worded and subject to misinterpretation. However, Mr. Fernandez also stated that he had no intent to deceive the NRC or FPL with respect to CR 2004-13573. Furthermore, Mr. Fernandez expressed a clear understanding of the importance of preparing documentation at NRC-regulated facilities that is complete and accurate. 2. Mr. Fernandez indicated that since approximately February 2006, he has not been involved in any activities at any facility that is subject to NRC regulations. Mr. Fernandez also indicated that, as of the date of the ADR meeting, he has no intention of working or seeking employment in any activities or at any facility subject to NRC regulations, and that he will not seek employment requiring his participation in NRC-regulated activities before June 30, 2008. 3. Mr. Fernandez agreed that, should he seek employment with an entity involved in NRC-regulated activities and requiring unescorted access authorization prior to June 30, 2010, he will provide the NRC with a letter discussing the steps he has taken to assure his understanding of the importance of completeness and accuracy of information at facilities subject to NRC regulation. In addition, Mr. Fernandez agreed to provide any such future employer with a copy of this Confirmatory Order. Mr. Fernandez further agreed he will make himself available to participate in training to discuss lessons learned from this matter and the importance of completeness and accuracy of condition reports and other internal documents. 4. The NRC concluded that Mr. Fernandez's agreement not to seek employment with an entity involved in NRC-regulated activities and requiring unescorted access authorization until after June 30, 2008, and his agreement, should he seek employment with such an entity prior to June 30, 2010, to provide to the NRC a letter discussing the steps he has taken to assure his understanding of NRC requirements in effect at the time, is sufficient to address all Agency concerns regarding his involvement in the matter discussed in the NRC's letter of May 30, 2007. 5. In consideration of the above, the NRC agreed to forego issuance of a Notice of Violation or other enforcement action in this matter. 6. The NRC and Mr. Fernandez agreed that the above elements will be incorporated into a Confirmatory Order. 7. Mr. Fernandez agreed to waive the right to request a hearing regarding all or any part of the Confirmatory Order. IV Because Mr. Fernandez has agreed to take actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Order. I find that Mr. Fernandez's commitments set forth in section V below are acceptable and necessary, and I conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Mr. Fernandez's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and Mr. Fernandez's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 50, *It is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that: 1. Mr. Fernandez will not seek employment requiring his participation in NRC-regulated activities before June 30, 2008. 2. Should Mr. Fernandez seek employment with an entity involved in NRC-regulated activities and requiring unescorted access authorization before June 30, 2010, he will provide the NRC with a letter discussing the steps he has taken to assure he understands the importance of providing complete and accurate information at facilities subject to NRC regulation. 3. Mr. Fernandez will provide any future employer engaged in NRC-regulated activities with a copy of this Confirmatory Order. 4. Should Mr. Fernandez resume employment in NRC-regulated activities, he will make himself available to participate in training to discuss lessons learned from this matter and the importance of preparing complete and accurate condition reports and other internal documents. The Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Mr. Fernandez of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Mr. Luis Fernandez, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931; and to Mr. Luis Fernandez. Because of the possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . If a person other than Mr. Fernandez requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 22nd day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Victor M. McCree, Acting Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-1785 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [IA-07-028] In the Matter of Mr. William Johns; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) I Mr. William Johns is the former Security Manager at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Turkey Point) operated by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or Licensee). FPL holds License No. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) on July 19, 1972, and April 10, 1973, respectively, pursuant to 10 CFR part 50. The license authorizes the operation of Turkey Point, Units 3 & 4, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Turkey Point is located on the Licensee's site in Florida City, Florida. II In August 2005, a broken firing pin from a contingency response weapon was discovered at FPL's Turkey Point facility. FPL conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the broken pin. As the Security Manager at Turkey Point at that time, Mr. Johns was advised of the status and progress of the FPL investigation. Based on his understanding of the circumstances of the matter and his understanding of reporting requirements and guidelines, in approximately September 2005, Mr. Johns ensured or allowed the event to be documented into the plant security log at that time, and concluded that this incident would not be reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix G.I.(a)(3). III In February 2006, the NRC's Office of Investigations

(OI)initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the broken firing pin. Based on the OI investigation, the NRC reached a preliminary conclusion that Mr. Johns deliberately failed to make a one-hour report to the Commission of an event involving the interruption of normal operation of a licensed nuclear power reactor through the unauthorized use of or tampering with its machinery, components, or controls, including the security system. In this case, the tampering event involved the breaking of a firing pin for a contingency response weapon. As a result, the NRC concluded that Mr. Johns was in apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.5, in that his actions caused FPL to be in violation of 10 CFR part 73, Appendix G.I.(a)(3). The results of the NRC's preliminary conclusion were provided to Mr. Johns by letter dated May 30, 2007. The NRC's letter informed Mr. Johns that the NRC was considering the apparent violation for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, and offered Mr. Johns a choice to:

(1)Attend a Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference;

(2)provide a written response; or

(3)request ADR with the NRC in an attempt to resolve any disagreement on whether a violation occurred, the appropriate enforcement action, and the appropriate corrective actions. In response, Mr. Johns requested ADR to resolve the matter. Mr. Johns and the NRC participated in an ADR session in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 11, 2007. As the result of the ADR session, Mr. Johns and the NRC reached a settlement agreement. The elements of the Agreement in Principle consisted of the following: 1. Mr. Johns disagreed with certain facts supporting a conclusion that he violated 10 CFR 50.5, and he denied that he engaged in any deliberate misconduct. At the ADR session, Mr. Johns elaborated on the circumstances surrounding his involvement in the apparent violation, in support of his view that his actions did not represent deliberate misconduct. In particular, Mr. Johns stated that his actions in not reporting the incident in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix G were consistent with his previous practice and experience with reporting such incidents, and the fact that the underlying issue did not appear to be a result of a malevolent intent. Mr. Johns further stated that his decision to enter the event in the plant security log, rather than make a one-hour report to the NRC, was consistent with his understanding of NRC guidance in Generic Letter 91-03, Reporting of Safeguards Events. 2. Mr. Johns indicated that since approximately February 2006, he has not been involved in any activities at any facility that is subject to NRC regulations. Mr. Johns also indicated that, as of the date of the ADR session, he had no intention of working or seeking employment in any activities or at any facility that is subject to NRC regulations, and that he would not seek employment requiring his participation in NRC-regulated activities before July 15, 2008. 3. Prior to seeking future employment in NRC-regulated activities, Mr. Johns will submit to the NRC a letter explaining the steps he has taken to assure he understands the NRC's security reporting requirements in effect at the time. 4. The NRC concluded that Mr. Johns' agreement to not seek employment requiring his participation in NRC-regulated activities until after July 15, 2008, and his agreement to provide the NRC a letter explaining the steps he has taken to ensure he understands the NRC's reporting requirements in effect at the time, is sufficient to address all Agency concerns regarding his involvement in the matter discussed in the NRC's letter dated May 30, 2007. 5. In consideration of the above, the NRC agreed to forego issuance of a Notice of Violation or other enforcement action in this matter. 6. The NRC and Mr. Johns agreed that the above elements will be incorporated into a Confirmatory Order. 7. Mr. Johns agreed to waive the right to request a hearing regarding all or any part of the Confirmatory Order. IV Because Mr. Johns has agreed to take actions to address the NRC's concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Order. I find that Mr. Johns' commitments set forth in Section V below are acceptable and necessary, and I conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Mr. Johns' commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and Mr. Johns' consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, *It is hereby ordered,* effective immediately, that: 1. Mr. Johns will not seek employment requiring his participation in NRC-regulated activities before July 15, 2008. 2. Prior to seeking future employment in NRC-regulated activities, Mr. Johns will submit to the NRC a letter explaining the steps he has taken to ensure he understands the NRC's security reporting requirements in effect at the time. The Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Mr. Johns of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Mr. William Johns, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931; and to Mr. William Johns. Because of the possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than Mr. Johns requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 22nd day of January 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Victor M. McCree, Acting Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-1795 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No.: 070-3103] Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring for Louisiana Energy Services National Enrichment Facility In Lea County, New Mexico, and Conforming Amendment, and Opportunity To Provide Comments and Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of application for approval of an indirect license transfer, and opportunity to request a hearing and provide written comments. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by February 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy C. Johnson, Sr. Project Manager, Enrichment and Conversion Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)492-3121; Fax number:

(301)492-3359; e-mail: *tcj@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is considering an application for approval of an indirect transfer of control regarding Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-2010. This license was issued on June 23, 2006, to Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (the Licensee), for its National Enrichment Facility (NEF), located in Lea County, New Mexico. The license authorizes the Licensee to construct and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The application now being considered is dated October 19, 2007. The Licensee proposes to

(1)restructure itself from a Limited Partnership

(LP)to a Limited Liability Company (LLC); and

(2)reorganize the ownership arrangement of Urenco Deelnemingen BV (UDE), a current limited partner of the Licensee. No physical changes to the NEF or operational changes are being proposed. An NRC administrative review, documented in an e-mail sent to the Licensee on November 7, 2007, found the application acceptable to begin a more detailed technical review. If the application is granted, the license would be amended for administrative purposes to reflect the transfer, by replacing references to Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., in the license with references to Louisiana Energy Services, L.L.C. Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 70.36, no license granted under 10 CFR part 70, and no right thereunder to use special nuclear material, shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), and gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed restructuring and reorganization will not affect the qualifications of the Licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. If the October 19 application is granted, the license would be amended to reflect the Licensee's new status as an LLC, and UDE's reorganized ownership. Before such a license amendment is issued, the NRC will have made the findings required by the AEA and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report. An Environmental Assessment

(EA)will not be performed because, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21), license transfer approvals and associated license amendments are categorically excluded from the requirement to perform an EA. II. Opportunity to Request a Hearing Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected and who desires to participate as a party must file a request for a hearing. The hearing request must include a specification of the contentions that the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, and must be filed in accordance the NRC E-filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital identification

(ID)certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209, or locally

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at: *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3)), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by February 20, 2008. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. *Technical* —primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed action. 2. *Environmental* —primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. *Emergency Planning* —primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 4. *Physical Security* —primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 5. *Miscellaneous* —does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. As indicated below, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.310(g), any hearing would be subject to the procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, Subpart M. III. Opportunity to Provide Written Comments Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Comments received after 30 days will be considered if practicable to do so, but only those comments received on or before the due date can be assured consideration. For further details with respect to this license transfer application, see the application dated October 19, 2007, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency Wide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of January, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Smith, Chief, Enrichment and Conversion Branch, Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E8-1807 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-28134] Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 January 25, 2008. The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of January 2008. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel. 202-551-5850). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on February 19, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at

(202)551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041. Zacks Series Trust [File No. 811-9549] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any kind. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 8, 2007, and amended on January 11, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60606. Van Kampen Income Trust [File No. 811-5273] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 25, 2007, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $4,500 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on December 14, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036. BlackRock S&P 500

(R)Protected Equity Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9479] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 21, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $37,425 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”), applicant's investment adviser. On November 28, 2007, assets of $257,156, representing an amount due to applicant, and an offsetting liability in the same amount, representing monies advanced to applicant for distribution to shareholders by BlackRock, were transferred to BSP Liquidating Trust, resulting in applicant having no assets or liabilities as of that date. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on December 19, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* c/o BlackRock Advisors, LLC, 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809. USAA Mutual Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-2429] USAA Tax Exempt Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3333] USAA Investment Trust [File No. 811-4019] *Summary:* Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 31, 2006, each applicant transferred its assets to USAA Mutual Funds Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of $1,680,029, $272,077 and $650,851, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by each applicant. *Filing Dates:* The applications were filed on December 14, 2007. *Applicants' Address:* 9800 Fredericksburg Rd., A-3-W, San Antonio, TX 78288. Sit Mutual Funds Trust [File No. 811-21447] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 31, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to Sit Tax-Free Income Fund, a series of Sit Mutual Funds II, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of $22,795 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Sit Investment Associates, Inc., applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 8, 2007, and amended on January 7, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* Sit Mutual Funds, 3300 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402. Mezzacappa Long/Short Fund, LLC [File No. 811-21469] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant is not presently making a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering. Applicant will continue to engage in its regular business activities and will operate in reliance on section 3(c)(7) of the Act. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 21, 2007 and amended on December 21, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 630 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10111. MDT Funds [File No. 811-21141] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 17, 2006 and December 8, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to corresponding series of Federated MDT Series, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $1,358,297 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Federated Investors, Inc., the parent of the surviving fund. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 13, 2007, and amended on December 21, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* Federated Investors Tower, 5800 Corporate Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15237-7010. The Jhaveri Trust [File No. 811-8974] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant is not currently making a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering. Applicant has fewer than one hundred beneficial owners and will continue to operate as a private investment vehicle in reliance on section 3(c)(1) of the Act. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on December 29, 2006, and amended on March 5, 2007, and January 24, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 27881 Clemens Rd., Westlake, OH 44145. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1687 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57199; File No. SR-NASD-2005-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.); Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Relating to the Regulation of Compensation, Fees and Expenses in Public Offerings of Real Estate Investment Trusts and Direct Participation Programs January 25, 2008. On September 28, 2005, pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) 3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) proposed amendments to NASD Rule 2810. On June 12, 2006, NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006 (“Original Proposal”), 5 and the Commission received six comments, which are discussed below in section II. 6 On April 16, 2007, NASD filed Amendment No. 2. 7 On November 9, 2007, FINRA filed Amendment No. 3. 8 On January 2, 2008, FINRA filed Amendment No. 4 to respond to the comments, and to make revisions to the rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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 On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. *See* Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (Aug. 1, 2007). 4 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original rule filing. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54118 (July 10, 2006), 71 FR 40569 (July 17, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-114). 6 *See* letters from the Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities of the American Bar Association (Keith F. Higgins), dated Aug. 22, 2006 (“ABA Committee”); North American Securities Administrators Association (Patricia D. Struck), dated Aug. 11, 2006 (“NASAA”); Dominion Investor Services, Inc. (Kevin P. Takacs), dated Aug. 7, 2006; Investment Program Association (Rosemarie Thurston), dated Aug. 7, 2006 (“IPA”); the Securities Division of Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Bryan Lantagne), dated Aug. 4, 2006 (“Massachusetts Securities Division”); and Cambridge Legacy Group (Frank Akridge, Jr.), dated Aug. 4, 2006. 7 Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 1. 8 Amendment No. 3 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 2. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change FINRA is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2810 to address the regulation of compensation, fees and expenses in public offerings of direct participation programs and real estate investment trusts. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 2810. Direct Participation Programs

(a)No Change.

(b)Requirements.

(1)Application. No member or person associated with a member shall participate in a public offering of a direct participation program *,* [or] a limited partnership rollup transaction *or, where expressly provided below, a real estate investment trust as defined in Rule 2340(d)(4) (“REIT”),* except in accordance with this paragraph

(b)*, provided however, this paragraph

(b)shall not apply to an initial or secondary public offering of or a secondary market transaction in a unit, depositary receipt or other interest in a direct participation program that complies with subparagraph (2)(D).*

(2)No Change.

(3)Disclosure.

(A)Prior to participating in a public offering of a direct participation program *or REIT* , a member or person associated with a member shall have reasonable grounds to believe, based on information made available to him by the sponsor through a prospectus or other materials, that all material facts are adequately and accurately disclosed and provide a basis for evaluating the program.

(B)through

(C)No Change.

(D)Prior to executing a purchase transaction in a direct participation program *or a REIT* , a member or person associated with a member shall inform the prospective participant of all pertinent facts relating to the liquidity and marketability of the program *or REIT* during the term of the investment[;] *. Included in the pertinent facts shall be information regarding whether the sponsor has offered prior programs or REITs in which disclosed in the offering materials was a date or time period at which the program or REIT might be liquidated, and whether the prior program(s) or REIT(s) in fact liquidated on or around that date or during the time period.* [provided, however, that paragraph

(b)shall not apply to an initial or secondary public offering of a secondary market transaction in a unit, depositary receipt or other interest in a direct participation program which complies with subparagraph (2)(D).]

(4)Organization and Offering Expenses.

(A)No member or person associated with a member shall underwrite or participate in a public offering of a direct participation program *or REIT* if the organization and offering expenses are not fair and reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors.

(B)In determining the fairness and reasonableness of organization and offering expenses *that are deemed to be in connection with or related to the distribution of the public offering* for purposes of subparagraph

(A)hereof, the arrangements shall be presumed to be unfair and unreasonable if: *(i) Organization and offering expenses, as defined in subparagraph (b)(4)(C), in which a member or an affiliate of a member is a sponsor exceed an amount that equals fifteen percent of the gross proceeds of the offering* ; [(i)] *(ii)* The total amount of all items of compensation from whatever source *, including offering proceeds and “trail commissions”* payable to underwriters, broker/dealers, or affiliates thereof, [which are deemed to be in connection with or related to the distribution of the public offering,] exceeds *an amount that equals ten percent of the gross proceeds of the offering* [currently effective compensation guidelines for direct participation programs published by the Association];[ * ] [(ii) Organization and offering expenses paid by a program in which a member or an affiliate of a member is a sponsor exceed currently effective guidelines for such expenses published by the Association; ** ]

(iii)No Change.

(iv)Commissions or other compensation are to be paid or awarded either directly or indirectly, to any person engaged by a potential investor for investment advice as an inducement to such advisor to advise the purchaser of interests in a particular program *or REIT* , unless such person is a registered broker/dealer or a person associated with such a broker/dealer; [or]

(v)The program *or REIT* provides for compensation of an indeterminate nature to be paid to members or persons associated with members for sales of *the* program [units] *or REIT* , or for services of any kind rendered in connection with or related to the distribution thereof, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: a percentage of the management fee, a profit sharing arrangement, brokerage commissions, an[d] over-riding royalty interest, a net profits interest, a percentage of revenues, a reversionary interest, a working interest, a security or right to acquire a security having an indeterminate value, or other similar incentive items; [provided however, that an arrangement which provides for continuing compensation to a member or person associated with a member in connection with a public offering shall not be presumed to be unfair and unreasonable if all of the following conditions are satisfied:] [a. The continuing compensation is to be received only after each investor in the program has received cash distributions from the program aggregating an amount equal to his cash investment plus a six percent cumulative annual return on his adjusted investment;] [b. The continuing compensation is to be calculated as a percentage of program cash distributions;] [c. The amount of continuing compensation does not exceed three percent for each one percentage point that the total of all compensation pursuant to subparagraph (B)(i) received at the time of the offering and at the time any installment payment is made fall below nine percent; provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of continuing compensation exceed 12 percent of program cash distributions; and] [d. If any portion of the continuing compensation is to be derived from the limited partners' interest in the program cash distributions, the percentage of the continuing compensation shall be no greater than the percentage of program cash distributions to which limited partners are entitled at the time of the payment.] *

(vi)The program or REIT charges a sales load or commission on securities that are purchased through the reinvestment of dividends, unless the registration statement registering the securities under the Securities Act of 1933 became effective prior to [the effective date of this proposed rule change]; or * *(vii) The member has received reimbursement for due diligence expenses that are not included in a detailed and itemized invoice, unless the amount of the reimbursement is included in the calculation of underwriting compensation as a non-accountable expense allowance, which when aggregated with all other such non-accountable expenses, does not exceed three percent of offering proceeds.* *(C) The organization and offering expenses subject to the limitations in subparagraph (b)(4)(B)(i) above include the following:* *(i) Issuer expenses, including overhead expenses that are reimbursed or paid for with offering proceeds, which include, but are not limited to, expenses for:* *a. Assembling, printing and mailing offering materials, processing subscription agreements, generating advertising and sales materials;* *b. Legal and accounting services provided to the sponsor or issuer;* *c. Salaries and non-transaction-based compensation paid to employees or agents of the sponsor or issuer for performing services for the sponsor or issuer;* *d. Transfer agents, escrow holders depositories, engineers and other experts, and* *e. Registration and qualification of securities under federal and state law, including taxes and fees and NASD fees;*

(ii)*Underwriting compensation, which includes but is not limited to items of compensation listed in Rule 2710(c)(3) including payments:* *a. To any wholesaling or retailing firm that is engaged in the solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of the program or REIT securities;* *b. To any registered representative of a member who receives transaction-based compensation in connection with the offering;* *c. To any registered representative who is engaged in the solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of the program or REIT securities, other than one whose functions in connection with the offering are solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial; or* *d. For training and education meetings, legal services provided to a member in connection with the offering, advertising and sales material generated by the member and contributions to conferences and meetings held by non-affiliated members for their registered representatives.* *(iii) Due diligence expenses incurred when a member affirmatively discharges its responsibilities to ensure that all material facts pertaining to a program or REIT are adequately and accurately disclosed in the offering document.* *(D) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (b)(4)(C)(ii)b. and c. above, information may be provided to NASD from which the Corporate Financing Department can readily determine that some portion of a registered representative's non-transaction based compensation should not be deemed to be underwriting compensation if the registered representative is either: a dual employee of a program or REIT with fewer than ten people engaged in wholesaling; or a dual employee who is one of the top ten highest paid executives based on non-transaction based compensation in any program or REIT.* [(C)] *(E)* All items of compensation paid by the program *or REIT* directly or indirectly from whatever source to underwriters, brokers/dealers, or affiliates thereof, including, but not limited to, sales commissions, wholesaling fees, due diligence expenses, other underwriter's expenses, underwriter's counsel's fees, securities or rights to acquire securities, rights of first refusal, consulting fees, finder's fees, investor relations fees, and any other items of compensation for services of any kind or description, which are deemed to be in connection with or related to the public offering, shall be taken into consideration in computing the amount of compensation for purposes of determining compliance with the provisions of subparagraphs

(A)and (B). [(D)] *(F)* The determination of whether compensation paid to underwriters, broker/dealers, or affiliates thereof is in connection with or related to a public offering, for purposes of this subparagraph (4), shall be made on the basis of such factors as the timing of the transaction, the consideration rendered, the investment risk, and the role of the member or affiliate in the organization, management and direction of the enterprise in which the sponsor is involved.

(i)An affiliate of a member which acts or proposes to act as a general partner, associate general partner, or other sponsor of a program *or REIT* shall be presumed to be bearing investment risk for purposes of this paragraph

(b)if the affiliate: a. Through b. No Change. c. Has a net worth equal to at least five percent of the net proceeds of the public offering or $1.0 million, whichever is less; provided, however, that the computation of the net worth shall not include an interest in the program offered but may include net worth applied to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph

(b)with respect to other programs *or REITs;* and d. Agrees to maintain net worth as required by subparagraph c. above under its control until the earlier of the removal or withdrawal of the affiliate as a general partner, associate general partner, or other sponsor, or the dissolution of the program *or REIT.*

(ii)No Change. [(E)] *(G)* Subject to the limitations on direct and indirect non-cash compensation provided under subparagraph [(E)] *(C),* no member shall accept any cash compensation unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i)Through

(v)No Change.

(5)Valuation for Customer Account Statements. No member may participate in a public offering of direct participation program *or REIT* securities unless[:] [(A)] The general partner or sponsor of the program will disclose in each annual report distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act a per share estimated value of the direct participation program securities, the method by which it was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the estimated value.

(6)No Change.

(c)Non-Cash Compensation.

(1)No Change.

(2)Restriction on Non-Cash Compensation. In connection with the sale and distribution of direct participation *program or REIT* securities, no member or person associated with a member shall directly or indirectly accept or make payments or offers of payments of any non-cash compensation, except as provided in this provision. Non-cash compensation arrangements are limited to the following:

(A)Through

(B)No Change.

(C)Payment or reimbursement by offerors in connection with meetings held by an offeror or by a member for the purpose of training or education of associated persons of a member, provided that:

(i)No Change.

(ii)The location is appropriate to the purpose of the meeting, which shall mean *a United States* [an] office of the offeror or the member *holding the meeting,* or a facility located in the vicinity of such office, or a * United States* regional location with respect to *meetings of associated persons who work within that region or, with respect to* [regional] meetings * with direct participation programs or REITs, a United States location at which a significant or representative asset of the program or REIT is located; *

(iii)Through

(iv)No Change.

(D)Through

(E)No Change.

(d)No Change. [* A guideline for underwriting compensation of ten percent of proceeds received, plus a maximum of 0.5% for reimbursement of bona fide diligence expenses was published in Notice to Members 82-51 (October 19, 1982).] [** A guideline for organization and offering expenses of 15 percent proceeds received was published in Notice to Members 82-51 (October 19, 1982).] II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 2810 to address the regulation of compensation, fees and expenses in public offerings of direct participation programs (as defined in Rule 2810(a)(4)) (“DPPs”) and unlisted real estate investment trusts (as defined in Rule 2340(d)(4)) (“REITs”) (collectively “Investment Programs”). 9 Specifically, the proposed rule change addresses:

(1)Compensation limitations and the use and allocation of offering proceeds;

(2)disclosure regarding the liquidity of prior programs offered by the same sponsor;

(3)sales loads on reinvested dividends; and

(4)non-cash compensation provisions regarding the appropriate location for training and education meetings. The proposed rule change also adds REITs to provisions that already apply to DPPs, however, these amendments do not make any substantive changes to these sections. 10 9 The DPPs and REITs that comprise Investment Programs typically are structured so that several affiliated entities make up the program. The affiliated entities include the sponsor, the trust or limited partnership, and a broker-dealer. 10 Proposed amendments to Rule 2810(b)(3)(A), Rule 2810(b)(4)(A), Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(v), Rules 2810(b)(4)(D)-(G) and Rule 2810(b)(5). The proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(G) also corrects a typographical error by citing to “subparagraph (C),” instead of “subparagraph (E)” under the existing rule. a. Organization and Offering Expenses Rule 2810 provides three limitations on compensation and offering expenses (“O & O expenses”) in Investment Programs. In the current rule, as interpreted by NASD compensation guidelines, these expenses are broken down into three categories: “compensation,” “due diligence,” and “issuer organization and offering expenses.” First, compensation payable to underwriters, broker-dealers, or affiliates may not exceed 10 percent of the gross proceeds of the offering, regardless of the source from which it is derived. Second, members or independent due diligence firms may be reimbursed an additional 0.5 percent for bona fide due diligence expenses. And third, total issuer O & O expenses for programs in which the member is affiliated with the program sponsor may not exceed 15 percent of the offering proceeds, including any compensation and due diligence expenses. 11 11 *See* current Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(i) and *Notice to Members 82-51.* This 15 percent limitation on O & O expenses applies only to sponsors that are affiliated with NASD members, while the 10 percent compensation limitation applies to all DPPs. For offerings of programs in which the member is affiliated with the sponsor, this allows an additional 4.5 percent for issuer O & O expenses above the 10 percent underwriting compensation and 0.5 percent due diligence expenses. As discussed below, the proposed rule change would make the Rule more explicit and objective in its treatment of the allocation of certain fees and expenses between issuer O & O expenses and compensation (eliminating the current 0.5 percent limit on due diligence expenses and modifying the limitations pertaining to due diligence expenses). i. Issuer Expenses In the Original Proposal, NASD proposed to codify the methodology described in NASD *Notice to Members 04-07* 12 for allocating O & O expenses between compensation, due diligence and issuer O & O expenses. Under the Original Proposal, issuer O & O expenses would have included:

(i)Expenses, including overhead expenses, for assembling and mailing offering materials, processing subscription agreements and generating advertising and sales materials;

(ii)legal services provided to the sponsor or issuer; and

(iii)salaries and non-transaction-based compensation paid to employees or agents of the sponsor or issuer for performing such services. Also included as part of issuer O & O expenses would have been expenses incurred in connection with transfer agents, escrow holders, depositories, engineers and other experts, and registration and qualification of securities under federal and state law, including taxes and fees and NASD fees. 13 12 In *Notice to Members 04-07* (“ *Notice* ”), NASD requested comment on a proposed rule change and interpretive policies regarding the allocation of fees and expenses between issuers, sponsors and broker-dealers for Investment Programs in which the sponsors and broker-dealers offering such securities are affiliated. The *Notice* also addressed due diligence practices and disclosure in connection with Investment Programs as well as the allocation of underwriter compensation and issuer organization and offering expenses. The *Notice* also proposed prohibiting sales loads on reinvested dividends in Investment Programs and closed-end funds. Finally, the *Notice* requested comment on changes to two non-cash compensation provisions in Rules 2710(i) and 2810(c):

(1)A proposal to amend what would constitute an “appropriate location” for training and education meetings; and

(2)new “equal weighting” and “total production” limitations for internal sales contests. NASD received 10 comments on *Notice to Members 04-07.* Because the Original Proposal discussed the *Notice* in detail, this proposal only cites to the Notice when necessary. 13 *See* Original Proposal amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i). Three commenters addressed the proposed treatment of issuer O & O expenses. 14 Two commenters generally supported the proposal. 15 One commenter suggested revising the proposed rule change to clarify that the calculation of issuer expenses would only include those issuer O & O expenses that are reimbursed or paid for with offering proceeds. 16 This commenter believed that this clarification would be consistent with NASD's longstanding policy to include in the limitations on issuer O & O expenses only those expenses deemed to be in connection with the public offering and reimbursed or paid for with offering proceeds. The commenter also noted that the issuer's “business overhead” expenses, such as rent, telephone, insurance and employee benefits are costs generally not related to the public offering of an Investment Program's securities and not paid for from offering proceeds. 17 14 ABA Committee, Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. 15 Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. 16 ABA Committee. 17 *Id* . In addition, this commenter recommended that, to be consistent with Rule 2710, NASD should clarify that issuer O & O expenses include printing costs and accountants' fees, which are typically borne by the issuer. 18 18 *Id* . Finally, the commenter suggested that the term “issuer O & O expenses” should be changed to minimize confusion with the O & O expenses for the entire offering, which are capped at an amount that equals fifteen percent of the proceeds of an offering and include:

(1)“Issuer expenses;”

(2)“items of compensation;” and

(3)“due diligence expenses.” 19 19 *Id* . FINRA agrees that it has been longstanding NASD policy to include in the limitations on issuer O & O expenses only those expenses deemed to be in connection with the public offering and reimbursed or paid for with offering proceeds. FINRA is amending the proposed rule change to clarify this position 20 and also to clarify that issuer expenses include expenses related to printing costs and accounting fees. 21 20 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i)-(ii). 21 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i)(a) (printing costs) and Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i)(b) (accounting costs). Finally, FINRA has replaced the term “issuer O & O expenses” 22 with “issuer expenses” 23 to minimize confusion with the term “O & O expenses,” which includes

(1)issuer expenses;

(2)items of compensation; and

(3)due diligence expenses. 24 22 Original Proposal amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i). 23 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(i). 24 *See generally* proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C). With these modifications, FINRA is re-proposing in Amendment No. 3 the same amendments regarding issuer expenses that were the subject of the Original Proposal. ii. Limits on Compensation As in the Original Proposal, the rule change would clarify that amounts deducted from the offering proceeds or amounts paid to underwriters, broker-dealers or affiliates as trail commissions over time are to be treated as underwriting compensation. 25 In addition, paragraph (b)(4)(B)(ii) of Rule 2810 would be amended to expressly state that all items of compensation shall not exceed “ten percent of the gross proceeds of the offering.” 26 25 *See* proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(ii). The proposed amendment deletes the requirement that the compensation be “deemed to be in connection with or related to the distribution of the public offering.” This provision has been moved to proposed Rule 2810(b)(4)(B). 26 The ten percent figure currently is FINRA policy and is not in the text of the Rule. Accordingly, all items of compensation paid from any source, including offering proceeds, partnership assets or management fees, would be subject to a “hard cap” of an amount that equals ten percent of gross offering proceeds. 27 27 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(ii). The proposed rule change also limits total O & O expenses, as defined in paragraph (b)(4)(C), to fifteen percent of gross proceeds in an offering in which a member or an affiliate of a member is a sponsor. 28 28 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(i). The proposed rule change also would delete paragraphs (b)(4)(B)(v)(a) through

(d)of Rule 2810 relating to continuing compensation arrangements. Members have not relied on these provisions since their adoption, and the limitations on continuing compensation are included in paragraph (b)(4)(B)(i) of Rule 2810 as proposed to be amended. iii. Wholesaling and Dual Employees The amendments to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(a) in the Original Proposal would have deemed underwriting compensation to include payments to: any wholesaler that is engaged in the solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of the program or REIT securities and any employee of the wholesaler involved in the solicitation, development, maintenance and monitoring of selling agreements and relationships with broker/dealers and accounts and account holders at broker/dealers[.] Commenters generally supported the proposal with regard to wholesaling firms engaged in solicitation, marketing or distribution of an Investment Program's securities, but believed that the description of wholesaling activities by an employee of a wholesaler was too broad, noting that it included clerical and administrative functions in connection with the offering that traditionally had not been included as underwriting compensation. 29 29 ABA Committee, IPA and NASAA. The Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA urged the SEC and NASD to bring greater scrutiny to wholesaling activities, including how sponsors contact brokerage personnel. The Original Proposal also would have deemed underwriting compensation to include payments to: any employee of a member and any dual employee of a member and the sponsor, issuer or other affiliate who receives transaction-based compensation unless information has been provided to NASD, with regard to a program or REIT with fewer than ten people engaged in wholesaling, from which the Corporate Financing Department can readily conclude that the payments are made as consideration for non-broker/dealer services[.] 30 30 Original Proposal amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(b). Two commenters viewed the proposed treatment of payments to dual employees who receive transaction-based compensation as too broad because it failed to take into account situations in which such employees only spend part of their time engaged in marketing, distribution or sales of Investment Program securities. 31 31 ABA Committee and IPA. These commenters suggested an alternative approach of requiring the sponsor to make a good faith allocation for payments to dual employees ( *i.e.* , employees of a sponsor of an Investment Program and its affiliated broker-dealer) between underwriting compensation and non-distribution related expenses, so that only the allocable portion of a dual employee's transaction-based compensation would be included in the calculation of underwriting compensation. 32 32 *Id* . These commenters also suggested excluding from the rule's underwriting compensation limits payments to those employees that solely perform clerical, administrative or operational functions that generally do not require such persons to be registered as a representative or principal. 33 33 *Id* . FINRA revised the proposed amendments to Rules 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(a)-(b) described above in response to these comments. The proposed rule change clarifies that payments to wholesaling or retailing firms engaged in solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of Investment Program securities will be included in the underwriting compensation limits. 34 34 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(a). The Original Proposal would have included payments to employees engaged in wholesaling, regardless of whether they are registered. In general, employees who engage in wholesaling would be required to be registered as representatives under Rule 1031. 35 Accordingly, as described below, FINRA has amended the proposed rule change so that only payments to employees who are registered persons would be included in the underwriting compensation limits. 35 If in the course of reviewing an offering of an Investment Program, the Corporate Financing Department believes that an individual is not properly registered, it will refer such matter to the Member Regulation or Enforcement Departments for further review. First, the proposed rule change would include as underwriting compensation all payments to a registered representative (including a dual employee) that receives transaction-based compensation in connection with the sale or distribution of Investment Program securities, subject to two exceptions for small companies and top executives discussed below. 36 36 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(b). If a dual employee receives compensation for services provided in connection with more than one public offering, or for private placements in addition to offerings of Investment Programs, payments to such employees may be reasonably allocated between the offerings based on the time periods in which the employee was engaged in the offerings, if they are distinct, or based on the relative size of the offerings. Second, with regard to payments to registered representatives who do not receive transaction-based compensation in connection with the sale or distribution of Investment Program securities, the proposed rule change would treat as underwriting compensation payments to employees who are engaged in the solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of the Investment Program securities, except individuals whose functions in connection with the offering are solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial. 37 37 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(c). Notwithstanding the exemption in Rule 1060(a)(1) and the proposed amendment to Rules 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(b)-(c) discussed above, certain persons whose functions are solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial may choose to be registered as representatives. *See* Rule 1031(a). While commenters suggested an alternative approach of requiring the sponsor or affiliate to make a good faith allocation of payments to dual-employees between underwriting compensation and issuer expenses, FINRA believes the approach described above would be clearer and easier to administer, and would promote more consistency with the application of the rule among Investment Programs. Investment Programs should easily be able to ascertain whether a registered person's activities involve solicitation, marketing, distribution or sales of the Investment Program securities, and whether those activities are conducted solely and exclusively in a clerical or ministerial capacity. Moreover, this approach should minimize the opportunity for an Investment Program to mischaracterize dual employees' day-to-day activities or to make allocations that are inconsistent with industry standards. 38 38 Under the alternative approach suggested by the ABA Committee and IPA, an Investment Program that misallocated payments to dual employees to issuer expenses instead of underwriting compensation would, compared to its competitors, have more offering proceeds available under the compensation limits to market and sell its securities. NASD proposed to modify and improve upon the burdensome process involved when its Corporate Financing Department (“Department”) reviews Investment Programs for compliance with the compensation guidelines by analyzing information about job functions, time spent on those functions, and compensation paid to dual employees whose job functions include conducting a securities business. Commenters on *Notice to Members 04-07* urged NASD to continue to utilize the detailed job function analysis in its review of compensation associated with smaller Investment Programs, for which registered representatives are more likely to work in both the securities business and operations and administration. Accordingly, the Original Proposal provided that Investment Programs with fewer than ten people engaged in wholesaling could provide detailed per-employee information to the Department for its review. Based on its review, the Department could conclude that certain salary or other non-transaction-based payments made to the employee will be allocated to issuer expenses, notwithstanding the fact that the employee also received transaction-based compensation or spent allocable portions of time engaged in securities business activities. 39 Commenters supported this approach to smaller Investment Programs 40 and the proposed rule change includes these provisions. 39 Original Proposal amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(b). 40 IPA, Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. Many Investment Programs' top executives are registered persons who engage in multiple job functions among the program sponsor, wholesaler, property or equipment manager, and portfolio manager. FINRA believes that the Department can conduct an accurate and efficient review of this small group of individuals, whose job functions should be relatively easy to identify and evaluate given their level of prominence within an Investment Program. Accordingly, in response to comments, FINRA also is amending the Original Proposal to include the same job function analysis for any dual employee that is one of the ten highest paid executives in an Investment Program, based on his or her non-transaction-based compensation. 41 41 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(D). iv. Training and Education Meetings, Legal Services, and Advertising and Sales Materials The Original Proposal would have allocated to underwriting compensation fees and payments for training and education meetings, legal services provided to a broker-dealer participating in the offering and advertising and sales material generated by a broker-dealer participating in the offering. 42 Two commenters supported these provisions, while another commenter recommended technical changes. 43 FINRA has amended this proposal to include contributions to conferences and meetings held by non-affiliated members for their registered representatives. 44 42 Original Proposal amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(iii)(c). 43 The Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA supported the proposal. The ABA Committee recommended deleting “legal services” from the proposal because it would be duplicative of NASD Rule 2710(C)(3)(iii). 44 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(C)(ii)(d). v. Due Diligence The Original Proposal would have eliminated the 0.5 percent limit on due diligence expenses under Rule 2810 and would have required that due diligence expenses combined with issuer expenses not exceed the limits on O & O expenses in Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(i). 45 The Original Proposal also would have required that a member not accept any payments or reimbursements for due diligence expenses unless they are included in a detailed and itemized invoice that is presented by the member to the program sponsor or other entity that pays or reimburses due diligence expenses. 46 45 Instead, the maximum amount of O & O expenses would have remained fifteen percent of the gross proceeds of the offering (which amount would include:

(1)Issuer expenses;

(2)compensation up to the maximum of ten percent of gross proceeds; and

(3)due diligence expenses that are supported by a detailed and itemized invoice). 46 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(vii). Two commenters supported the proposed rule change. 47 Two commenters stated that the proposed rule change should allow due diligence expense reimbursements without a detailed and itemized invoice, and permit such expenses to be included in the 10 percent compensation limitation as a non-accountable expense, which is subject to a limit of up to three percent of the offering proceeds pursuant to NASD Rule 2710(f)(2)(B). 48 One commenter also requested clarification that any payments for due diligence expenses that are made pursuant to a detailed and itemized invoice will not be included in the 10 percent limit on underwriting compensation. 49 47 Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. 48 ABA Committee and IPA. 49 ABA Committee. Rule 2810 currently permits members to receive compensation up to 10 percent of the offering proceeds for services rendered in a distribution. These payments may include un-itemized expense allowances of up to three percent of the offering proceeds. FINRA agrees that it is reasonable to include un-itemized due diligence expenses as part of the underwriting compensation. FINRA, therefore, is amending the proposal to include, as part of underwriting compensation, due diligence reimbursements without a detailed and itemized invoice. 50 However, any member seeking to include due diligence expense as part of issuer expenses must submit an itemized invoice of their actual costs incurred for bona fide due diligence expenses. 51 50 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(vii). 51 Nothing in the proposed rule change would prohibit the inclusion of a profit margin in the due diligence expense bill of a firm that has conducted due diligence on behalf of a member and that is not a member or an affiliate of a member. *See* NASD *Notice to Members 86-66* (“Due Diligence Expense Reimbursements in Connection with Direct Participation Programs”). FINRA is also re-proposing to eliminate the 0.5 percent limit in due diligence expenses. 52 52 *See* footnote accompanying existing Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(i). b. Liquidity Disclosure Rule 2810(b)(3)(D) currently provides that prior to executing a purchase transaction in a direct participation program, a member or person associated with a member shall inform the prospective participant of all pertinent facts relating to the liquidity and marketability of the program during the terms of the investment. FINRA is concerned that some investors do not fully appreciate that the liquidation of some sponsors' programs are frequently delayed. The Original Proposal would have amended Rule 2810(b)(3)(D) to include REITs, and would have required members and their associated persons to inform prospective investors whether the sponsor has offered prior programs for which the prospectus disclosed a date or time period when the program might be liquidated, and whether the prior programs, in fact, liquidated on or around that date or time period. In addition, members selling Investment Programs would be required to disclose to investors whether prior programs offered by the program sponsor were, in fact, liquidated on or during the date or time period disclosed in the prospectuses for those programs. For example, if a sponsor has offered ten prior programs and only two of them liquidated by the date or time period set forth in the prospectus, the member would be required to disclose these facts. Two commenters supported the proposal. 53 One commenter objected to the proposed liquidity disclosure stating that prospectus disclosure typically includes a warning that the liquidity event or liquidation may be delayed due to market conditions and other factors. 54 In this commenter's view, the liquidity disclosure provision would unfairly characterize all situations in which a liquidity event was delayed as a “failure” or “inappropriate.” This commenter also stated that the recordkeeping burdens of the proposal and the unwarranted negative implications of such disclosure would outweigh the benefit. The commenter suggested that if a liquidity disclosure requirement were to be imposed, it should be done by an SEC rule rather than an NASD rule. Alternatively, if adopted by NASD, it should only apply to Investment Programs with fixed dates. 55 53 Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. 54 ABA Committee. 55 *Id* . FINRA is not persuaded by the commenter's suggestion that additional disclosure regarding historical liquidity practices necessarily creates “unwarranted negative implications.” Rather, FINRA believes that the proposed disclosure requirement will help investors make informed investment decisions based on the facts about a sponsor's liquidity track record. FINRA recognizes that delays in liquidity events may be due to market conditions and other factors beyond the sponsor's control, and that, under certain circumstances, investors ultimately may benefit from delays in liquidity events. When these facts are relevant, they can be conveyed in addition to the facts regarding the sponsor's liquidity track record providing investors with a complete picture of liquidity issues. FINRA also notes that the proposal would not require a member to “characterize” a previous delay in liquidation. Rather, the proposed rule change would require members to inform investors whether the sponsor has previously disclosed a date or time period when prior programs may be liquidated, and whether the programs were in fact liquidated on or around that date or time period. Therefore, FINRA is re-proposing the amendment to Rule 2810(b)(3)(D) as in the Original Proposal. c. Sales Loads on Reinvested Dividends The Original Proposal would have amended Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(vi) to prohibit sales loads on reinvested dividends for Investment Programs after the effective date of the proposed rule change. Two commenters strongly agreed with this proposal. 56 56 Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. FINRA is re-proposing this amendment to Rule 2810(b)(4)(B)(vi). d. Non-Cash Compensation Provisions i. Location of Training and Education Meetings The Original Proposal would have amended the current non-cash compensation rule to provide that an “appropriate location” for training and education meeting may include a location at which a significant or representative Investment Program asset is located. 57 This provision would recognize that an important part of bona fide training and education meetings for Investment Programs may be inspecting real estate, oil and gas production facilities, and other types of assets that will be held and managed by the program, 58 and would provide that a training and education meeting may include a location at which a “significant or representative” asset is located. 57 Proposed amendment to Rule 2810(c)(2)(C)(ii). 58 As discussed above, FINRA proposes to amend Rule 2810 so that the Rule's compensation, disclosure and non-cash compensation provisions expressly govern illiquid REITs ( *i.e.* , REITs as defined in Rule 2340(d)(4)). The proposed rule change would not amend the non-cash compensation provisions in Rule 2710, which currently are identical to those in Rule 2810. Accordingly, the non-cash compensation provisions regarding the location of training and education meetings will be different for exchange-traded REITs under Rule 2710 and illiquid REITs under Rule 2810. Commenters generally supported this aspect of the proposal; 59 however, one commenter suggested that the rule should explicitly state that the non-cash compensation provision applies to public offerings, and not private placements. 60 59 IPA, Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. 60 IPA (noting that it understands from conversations with NASD staff that the non-cash compensation rules are not intended to apply to private placements). Because Rule 2810 by its terms applies only to public offerings, FINRA believes that such additional clarification in this section is unnecessary. FINRA is re-proposing the amendment to Rule 2810(c)(2). ii. Total Production and Equal Weighting Requirements In connection with the Original Proposal, NASD stated that it was considering future amendments to Rule 2810 to incorporate the total production and equal weighting conditions for internal sales contests in its Investment Company Rule (Rule 2820) and Variable Contracts Rule (Rule 2830) in the context of a broader non-cash compensation rulemaking initiative. 61 61 *See Notice to Members 05-40.* Two commenters urged NASD to abolish sales contests because they create incentives that are contrary to the obligations broker-dealers have to their customers, such as fair dealing. 62 As noted above, FINRA will consider these issues in future rulemaking. 62 Massachusetts Securities Division and NASAA. e. Effective Date of the Proposed Rule Change FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a *Regulatory Notice* to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following publication of the *Regulatory Notice* announcing Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 63 which require, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change would codify FINRA's longstanding policy of applying certain regulatory requirements in Rule 2810 to REITs. In context of Investment Programs, FINRA believes that clarifying the standards for determining the fairness and reasonableness of compensation, treating the use and allocation of offering proceeds in a more explicit and objective manner, requiring disclosure regarding the liquidity of prior programs offered by the same sponsor, prohibiting sales loads on reinvested dividends and enabling bona fide training and education meetings to take place at appropriate locations, are measures designed to prevent fraudulent practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and the public interest. 63 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 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 Commission published the proposed rule change in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006. 64 The comment period closed on August 7, 2006. The Commission received six comments in response to the **Federal Register** publication of the proposal. The comments are summarized in Item II above. 64 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54118 (July 10, 2006), 71 FR 40569 (July 17, 2006). 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, as amended, 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-NASD-2005-114 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-114. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 FINRA. 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-NASD-2005-114 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 65 65 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1725 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57198; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-094] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Notification Requirements for Issuers Making Distributions to Shareholders January 24, 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 30, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “non-controversial” rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, 3 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 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes a rule change to include in the Nasdaq rule manual the notification requirements for issuers making distributions to shareholders. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets. 4 4 Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the electronic manual of Nasdaq found at *www.complinet.com/nasdaq* . 4310. Listing Requirements for Domestic and Canadian Securities (a)-(b) No Change. (c)(1)-(24) No Change. (c)(25) *In the case of any dividend action or action relating to a stock distribution of a listed stock the issuer shall, no later than 10 calendar days prior to the record date of such action:* [[Reserved]] *(i) Notify Nasdaq by filing the appropriate form as designated by Nasdaq; and* *(ii) Provide public notice using a Regulation FD compliant method.* *Notice to Nasdaq should be given as soon as possible after declaration and, in any event, no later than simultaneously with the public notice.* (c)(26)-(30) No Change. 4320. Listing Requirements for Non-Canadian Foreign Securities and American Depository Receipts (a)-(d) No Change. (e)(1)-(20) No Change. (e)(21) *In the case of any dividend action or action relating to a stock distribution of a listed stock the issuer shall, no later than 10 calendar days prior to the record date of such action:* [[Reserved]] *(i) Notify Nasdaq by filing the appropriate form as designated by Nasdaq; and* *(ii) Provide public notice using a Regulation FD compliant method.* *Notice to Nasdaq should be given as soon as possible after declaration and, in any event, no later than simultaneously with the public notice.* (e)(22)-(26) No Change.

(f)No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 Pursuant to SEC Rule 10b-17, 5 a national securities exchange may establish procedures under which an issuer must provide notice to the exchange no later than 10 calendar days prior to the record date of a dividend or other distribution in cash or in kind, including a dividend or distribution of any security. Nasdaq has implemented this requirement through procedures posted on its Web site at *http://www.nasdaq.com/about/FAQsMarketIntegrity.stm.* 5 17 CFR 240.10b-17. Upon receipt of an issuer's notification information regarding an upcoming distribution to shareholders, and in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 11140, Nasdaq Corporate Data Operations Staff thereafter determines the “ex” date for the distribution and announces that information to the marketplace via a Daily List, which is a daily publication of all newly announced dividends. The information on the Daily List includes, among other things, the record date, payment date, payment amount and all new ex date rulings in order to provide the marketplace with the information necessary to adjust the price of the security on the ex date to represent the value of the dividend. The proposed rule text specifically incorporates the 10 day notice period set forth in SEC Rule 10b-17. Additionally, the proposed rule language requires that an issuer provide such notice through the use of appropriate Nasdaq forms and through the use of a Regulation FD compliant method to help ensure that both Nasdaq and the public are appropriately alerted in a timely manner as to any upcoming distributions to shareholders. Nasdaq believes that adopting a listing standard in this area, rather than relying on procedures described on a Web site, will provide greater transparency to issuers and investors and reduce the likelihood of untimely notification of dividend declarations. Moreover, we note that both the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“Amex”) have each already adopted rules that implement SEC Rule 10b-17 as to their listed issuers. 6 Thus, adoption of a Nasdaq listing standard will provide uniformity throughout the markets. Nasdaq's proposed rule is consistent in all respects with the procedures on its Web site. 6 *See* NYSE Rule 204.12 and Amex Rule 830. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 in particular 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 mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Untimely notification of dividend declarations may have a negative impact on the marketplace in the form of a late ex date ruling so it is in the best interests of the marketplace that Nasdaq reflect its notification requirements in the Nasdaq manual. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 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 Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 10 because it does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing unless the Commission designates a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 11 Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule change operative immediately upon filing with the Commission. The Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative date is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change provides greater transparency to issuers and investors and may reduce the likelihood of untimely notification of dividend declarations. 12 For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission notes that Nasdaq has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative period, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule change on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of a rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 13 the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 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-NASDAQ-2007-094 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-NASDAQ-2007-094. 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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2007-094 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1731 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11158 and # 11159] Massachusetts Disaster # MA-00013 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dated 01/25/2008. *Incident:* Fire. *Incident Period:* 01/21/2008. *Effective Date:* 01/25/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/25/2008. *Economic Injury

(Eidl)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/27/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Essex. *Contiguous Counties:* Massachusetts: Middlesex and Suffolk. New Hampshire: Hillsborough and Rockingham. The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.500 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.750 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11158 5 and for economic injury is 11159 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Massachusetts and New Hampshire. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: January 25, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-1779 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Region IV North Florida District Advisory Council; Public Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2, section10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration North Florida District Advisory Council will host a public meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 12 p.m. EST. The meeting will take place at the Jacksonville Port Authority located at 9810 August Dr., Jacksonville, FL 32226. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present. The agenda items will include a presentation by JaxPort Executive Director Rick Ferrin as well as matters of the SBA including loan reports and goals status for FY 2008. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no later than Monday, February 4, 2008, in order to be placed on the agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256; Telephone

(904)443-1900 or FAX

(904)443-1980. Cherylyn Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-1767 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINSITRATION Houston District Advisory Council; Public Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, section 10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration Houston District Advisory Council will hold a federal public meeting on Friday February 8, 2008, starting at 11 a.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Houston District Office, located at 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77074. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following: Houston District Office Performance for 2007; Houston District Office Goals for 2008; National SBA Initiative; Local Issues from the Advisory Council Members; the Role of the District Offices through Centralization including Marketing, Processing and Legal; Community Express Loans; 504 Loans; 7(a) Loans; Patriot Express Loans; 8(a) Certification; SBA's Resource Partners—SBDC and SCORE; Small Business Week Awards Luncheon; MID America. For further information, please contact Alfreda Crawford, Business Development Specialist, at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Houston District Office, 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77074; e-mail, *Alfreda.Crawford@sba.gov* ; telephone

(713)773-6555. Cherylyn Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-1773 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Advisory Council; Public Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. APP. 2, section 10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)National Advisory Council

(NAC)will hold a public meeting on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 2 p.m. (eastern). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and outline FY 2008 projects for the NAC. The meeting will be open to the public. Anyone wishing to participate must contact Mina Wales or Adrienne Abney-Cole by phone or e-mail in order to be added to the agenda. Mina Wales, NAC Designated Federal Officer, 202-205-7180, *Mina.Wales@sba.gov* or Adrienne Abney-Cole, NAC Committee Management Specialist, 202-205-6742, *Adrienne.Abney-Cole@sba.gov.* The meeting will take place using an audio conferencing system. To participate, please call our toll free conferencing service at 1-866-740-1260 and enter access code 3711001 at the prompt. For more information about the National Advisory Council, please visit our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/nac/index.html.* Cherylyn Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-1768 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 6087] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Land Border Crosser Survey (Passport Demand Study Phase II), OMB No.1405-0177, SV-2007-0021 ACTION: Notice of request for public comments and submission to OMB of proposed information collection. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Land Border Crosser Survey (Passport Demand Study Phase II) • *OMB Control Number:* OMB No.1405-0177 • *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection • *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services Office: CA/PPT • *Form Number:* SV-2007-0021 • *Respondents:* A nationally representative sample of the United States land border crosser population • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,000 respondents per survey • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 8,000 responses per year. • *Average Hours Per Response:* 10 minutes • *Total Estimated Burden:* 1,334 hours annually • *Frequency:* Passport will conduct the land border survey semi-annually (twice per year). • *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached on 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Fax: 202-395-6974 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Alan J. Swygert, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., SA-29, Room 3002, Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202-663-2647 or at *swygertaj@state.gov* , or to Christine Grauer, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., SA-29, Room 3067, Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202-663-2751 or at *grauercl@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), enacted on December 17, 2004, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop expeditiously, and implement a plan to require U.S. citizens and certain other categories of individuals to present a passport or other sufficient documentation of identity and citizenship when entering the U.S. This law has had significant effect on travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Land border crossings represent the largest number of U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (U.S. VISIT) Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)inspections. Early data suggests that this population may have the greatest impact on passport demand. Given these new estimates for passport demand, CA/PPT is working to increase and manage its personnel and capital resources for the next several years. In support of these efforts, CA/PPT plans to conduct semi-annual Land Border Crosser Surveys. This additional gathering of data will provide the opportunity to refine volume and timing estimates of demand, and will help gauge public reaction to policy changes. Failure to prepare for this demand could result in delays in passport issuance and severely affect CA/PPT's ability to meet the public demand for passports. *Methodology:* Passport Services will conduct semi-annual National Land Border Crossers

(LBC)Surveys. This will consist of repeat cross-sectional surveys that are nationally representative but focus specifically on land border crossers. Data collection will be conducted via RDD telephone interviews including 2,000 interviews to be completed for likely Canadian land border crossers and 2,000 interviews completed for likely Mexican land border crossers. These completed interviews will include residents of “high density” areas, or those within a close proximity to land border crossings, as well as some “low density” areas, captured by taking a much smaller sample. Dated: January 25, 2008. Betsey Anderson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, CA/PPT, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1748 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6085] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor DRL; Proposal Submission Instructions Open Comment *Notice:* The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

(DRL)revised its Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)for grant awards in June 2007 to provide additional guidance to applicants and to increase formatting uniformity so that all received proposals are fairly reviewed based upon common criteria and definitions of terms. DRL requests feedback on this revised PSI in an effort to review the effectiveness of these new guidelines. Interested organizations should complete the questionnaire below. All feedback will be reviewed. DRL reserves the right to adjust or adapt the submission instructions accordingly. Solicitation of feedback does not imply endorsement of comments received. Questionnaires must not exceed four double-spaced pages and must be completed in Times New Roman 12 point font. Organizations are asked to submit only one questionnaire each. Please submit one response to the questionnaire per organization to DRL no later than 5 p.m. on February 20, 2008. Questionnaires should be sent to DRL via e-mail to *SteinhelferMD@state.gov.* We thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback to DRL. The PSI is located on the DRL Web site: *http://state.gov/g/drl/p/c9078.htm.* Additional Information: Proposal Submission Instructions Questionnaire Organization Name: Current DRL Grantee: YES or NO Have you ever used the PSI before: YES or NO For each section below, please highlight either Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Applicable (N/A) *General Information on Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI):* 1. The PSI provides useful guidelines for developing the content and format of a proposal. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 2. The PSI is easy to understand and follow. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A *Information on Technical Format Requirements:* 3. The technical format requirements provide a sufficient amount of detail on the requested proposal and budget components. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 4. The 6 pages allowed for the budget narrative provides enough space to give detailed budget information. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 5. The 5 pages allowed for attachments are sufficient for providing all necessary supplemental information. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to clarify responses about the Technical Format Requirements section of the PSI. *Information on Standard Forms:* 6. The PSI contains adequate instructions for completing the required standard forms. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to clarify responses about the Standard Form section of the PSI. *Information on Cost-Sharing:* 7. The cost sharing principles outlined in the PSI are easy to implement. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to clarify responses about the Cost-Sharing section of the PSI. *Information on Program Monitoring and Evaluation:* 8. The Monitoring and Evaluation section of the PSI provides clear guidelines for developing a well-designed monitoring and evaluation plan. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 9. The differences between project outputs and outcomes are well-defined. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to clarify responses about the Monitoring and Evaluation section of the PSI. *Information on Budget Guidelines:* 10. PSI budget guidelines provide clear instructions on how to develop comprehensive summary and line-item budgets. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 11. The PSI clearly delineates what costs should be included under Administrative versus Program costs. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 12. The budget template is a helpful tool for creating a program budget. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 13. Descriptions of line-item categories are useful for developing the budget and budget narrative. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 14. My organization has a good understanding of which costs are not DRL priorities. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Please use the space below to provide additional comments or to clarify responses about the Budget section of the PSI: Please use the space below to provide any additional information on the PSI content. Dated: January 23, 2008. Jonathan Farrar, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1750 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-18-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6088] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Community College Initiative for Egypt *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/S/U-08-03. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* April 7, 2008. *Executive Summary:* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)announces an open competition for one or more assistance awards to administer the Community College Initiative for Egypt, which will support study by Egyptian undergraduate students at accredited U.S. community colleges. The multi-year program will bring a total of 1,000 students to U.S. community colleges from Egypt. The Initiative builds on the Community College Initiative announced at the U.S. University Presidents Summit on International Education, convened by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education in January 2006. The Initiative will provide quality educational programs, professional development, employment skills and a deeper understanding of American society to underserved, non-elite Egyptian students, particularly women and students in their early and mid-twenties who already have some work experience. U.S. consortia of community colleges and other combinations of U.S. community college campuses meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to cooperate with the Bureau in the administration and implementation of the Fiscal Year 2008 Community College Initiative for Egypt. U.S. consortia and other combinations of U.S. community colleges must identify a lead institution to receive and administer the award. The total amount of funding available for all program and administrative costs will be approximately $15.5 million. Applicants may apply to administer the entire program or a portion thereof. Proposals should indicate the number of participants that can be accommodated at the funding level that is proposed, based on detailed calculations of program and administrative costs. In order to maximize the number of student participants under this program, it is the Bureau's expectation that significant institutional and private sector funding and cost-sharing will be made available by cooperating institutions. I. Funding Opportunity Description *Authority:* Overall grantmaking authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries* * * to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations* * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program is provided through legislation. *Purpose:* The Community College Initiative for Egypt will demonstrate the U.S. commitment to providing access to educational opportunities for a broad range of Egyptian undergraduate students. Through community college exchange initiatives, the Bureau hopes to engage the community college sector in the United States to increase the number of international students at U.S. community colleges and to reinforce community college efforts to build international ties. U.S. community colleges can make a unique contribution to international educational exchange by demonstrating the flexibility and relevance of American higher education and the manner in which community colleges provide quality technical and first-level professional education to vital sectors of society that are essential for nations to move forward economically and politically. They can also provide a model of lower-cost community-based higher education that offers wide access to skills development for existing jobs. Egyptian students selected for academic study at accredited U.S. community colleges under this initiative will receive educational opportunities, professional development, and an exposure to American society that will enable them to return home with unique skills and experiences with which to contribute to the growth and development of Egyptian society. Students are expected to return to Egypt promptly upon completion of their programs. Upon return, it is anticipated that these students will enter the skilled work force and fill important needs in Egypt. Funding will not be provided to support the dependents of participants in this program. *Guidelines:* Applicant institutions are requested to submit a narrative outlining a comprehensive strategy for the administration and implementation of the Community College Initiative for Egypt including the following program components: Identification of accredited U.S. community colleges to host students in clusters based on one or more of the fields of study that are listed in the following section; a system for acceptance and placement of students based on the nomination of candidates by the Fulbright Commission in Egypt for final approval by ECA; development and dissemination of pre-departure orientation materials; registration of participants in SEVIS on the Bureau's behalf for which ECA will provide the principal responsible officer; organization of post-arrival orientation programming; placement of students in programs lasting, in most cases, one academic year; enrichment programming; advising, monitoring and supporting participants; evaluation; and follow-up with program alumni. An applicant institution may propose to administer the entire program or a portion thereof based on the applicant's interest and capacity in relevant fields. A proposal should be consistent with the applicant's institutional capacities and the range of fields in which the institutions have expertise. The multi-year program will bring a total of approximately 1,000 students from Egypt to study at U.S. community colleges. We anticipate that approximately 450 to 475 students from Egypt will participate in the Fiscal Year 2008 Initiative. The budget should provide funding for round-trip travel, tuition, books, and living costs as well as costs for program administration. Cost-sharing is expected from institutions applying to cooperate with the Bureau on this Initiative. Applicant institutions are encouraged to include third-party contributions in their proposals. For each field of study, students should be clustered at one or more colleges with a strong program of instruction in the field. In most cases, colleges will place students in certificate programs lasting one academic year. Colleges may also offer students two-year programs leading either to a certificate or an Associate Degree, where two academic years are necessary to prepare students for employment. Those proposals that focus resources on more costly two-year programs should demonstrate significant levels of cost-sharing. Proposals should anticipate the placement of students in the following fields: • Agriculture • Applied Engineering • Business Management and Administration • Health Professions including Nursing • Information Technology • Media • Tourism and Hospitality Management Pre-departure orientation materials and on-campus arrival orientation programs should be provided. The Bureau will provide support for intensive English language instruction in Egypt to those students who lack adequate English to function effectively in the U.S. classroom as evidenced by standardized test scores; this instruction in Egypt will not be the responsibility of the cooperating organization. Applicant organizations should describe English as a Second Language programs and services that they are prepared to provide during the U.S. exchange to students needing additional language work. Beyond the classroom, host campuses should plan to provide practical, community-oriented, and service learning opportunities to participating students. Proposals should explain how students will engage in enrichment activities, and should include creative ideas for exposing students broadly to American institutions, society and culture. For example, these activities may include volunteer work; presentations to college classes, local schools and the community; involvement with local families; and attendance at educational and cultural events with a U.S. focus. Proposals should demonstrate depth of experience in conducting and administering complex and multi-faceted international education programs. Proposals should exhibit not only programmatic and logistical expertise but also a proven track record (four or more years) of financial management, including a demonstrated ability to manage U.S. government funds. Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (without Bureau support), such as tracking and maintaining updated lists of all alumni and facilitating follow-up activities with alumni, including list serves. Proposals should also convey an understanding of Egypt's culture, economy, and society. Proposal programs must conform with the Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package, which includes the Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP), the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). In a cooperative agreement, the Bureau is substantially involved in program activities above and beyond routine grant monitoring. Bureau activities and responsibilities for this program include:

(1)Participation in the design and direction of program activities;

(2)Approval of key personnel;

(3)Approval and input on program timelines and agendas;

(4)Guidance in execution of all program components;

(5)Review and approval of all program publicity and other materials;

(6)Approval of host campuses;

(7)Final selection of participating students;

(8)Approval of changes to students' proposed academic field or institution;

(9)Approval of decisions related to special circumstances or problems throughout duration of program;

(10)Oversight of SEVIS-related issues;

(11)Assistance with participant emergencies;

(12)Liaison with the Fulbright Commission in Egypt and desk officers for Egypt at the State Department. A total of $15.5 million in FY 2007/FY 2008 Economic Support Funds will support one or more awards under this competition. Programs should begin on or about July 1, 2008 and will run through June 30, 2011. Awards will include funds for both the administrative and program portions of the program such as: Selection, placement and monitoring of all students starting academic programs in Fall 2009; the preparation of pre-departure orientation materials and the organization of on-campus orientation programs in the U.S. for students; oversight and monitoring of practical and service learning opportunities for students; evaluation of all aspects of the program; and the design and administration of creative programs of follow-up support and coordination with program alumni. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. ECA's level of involvement in this program is listed under number I above. *Fiscal Year Funds:* $15,500,000 in FY 2007/FY 2008 Economic Support Funds

(ESF)has been transferred to the Bureau to support this competition. *Approximate Total Funding:* $15,500,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* Pending the review and approval of successful proposals, the Bureau intends to make approximately one to four awards under this competition. *Approximate Average Award:* The size of the awards will depend on the number and quality of the proposals submitted, and on the distribution of fields on which the recommended proposals focus. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, July 1, 2008. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* June 30, 2011. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to provide up to two additional awards to successful institutions for subsequent cohorts of students in addition to those covered by the initial award. III. Eligibility Information III.1. Eligible applicants: Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) including consortia of accredited U.S. community colleges, or other combinations of multiple community college campuses. Consortia must designate a lead institution to receive and administer the award. III.2. Cost-Sharing or Matching Funds: There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost-sharing and funding in support of its programs. Cost-sharing at a significant level will be required for arrangements that include study for more than one academic year. When cost-sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost-sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved cooperative agreement. Cost-sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, organizations must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as contributions, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost-Sharing and Matching. In the event that the minimum amount of cost-sharing as stipulated in the approved budget is not provided, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements: Bureau grant and cooperative agreement guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. Due to the scope and complexity of this program, organizations with less than a four-year track record in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1 Contact Information to Request an Application Package: Please contact the Office of Global Educational Programs, ECA/A/S/U, Room 349, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547; telephone 202-453-8643; fax 202-453-8890; e-mail *GradKX@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/A/S/U-08-03) located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction

(PSI)document which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition. Please specify Bureau Program Officer Karene Grad and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/A/S/U-08-03) located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet: The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm* , or from the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov* . Please read all information before downloading. IV.3. Content and Form of Submission: Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The application should be submitted per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” section below. IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

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

(PSI)document and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV.3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV.3d.1. Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places critically important emphases on the security and proper administration of the Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by cooperating organizations and sponsors to all regulations governing the J visa. Therefore, proposals should demonstrate the applicant's capacity to meet all requirements governing the administration of the Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62, including the oversight of Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. The cooperating organizations will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor

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

(202)203-5029, FAX:

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

(1)specifies intended outcomes;

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

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

(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) Cooperating organizations will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. IV.3d.4. Describe in your proposal your plans for: Overall program management, staffing, coordination with ECA and with community colleges enrolling clusters of students, and learning and service opportunities for students. Please provide a staffing plan which outlines the responsibilities of each staff person and explains which staff members will be accountable for each program responsibility. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the complete program or a portion of the program. The total funding available for this program is approximately $15,500,000 for both program and administrative costs. Applicants may apply to administer total funds of less than $15,500,000, proportionate with the program being proposed. Please indicate clearly the number of students to be funded and the budget total for both administrative and program costs. Applicant institutions must present a summary budget as well as breakdowns including both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program and additional budget guidance are outlined in detail in the POGI document. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* April 7, 2008. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/S/U-08-03. *Methods of Submission:* Applications may be submitted in one of two ways: (1.) In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or (2.) electronically through *http://www.grants.gov* . Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1. Submitting Printed Applications. Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages may not be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission, please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and ten copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/U-08-03, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) or Microsoft Word format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section at the U.S. embassy in Egypt for its review. IV.3f.2. Submitting Electronic Applications. Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the ‘Get Started' portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with *Grants.gov.* Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support. Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726. Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time. E-mail: *support@grants.gov* . Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process. The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for cooperative agreements resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: 1. Quality of the program idea: Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission as well as the objectives of the Community College Initiative for Egypt. Proposals should demonstrate an understanding of Egypt and of the needs of Egyptian students as related to the program goals. A detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity for students placed in field-related clusters. The agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. 2. Ability to achieve program objectives: Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the Community College Initiative for Egypt's objectives and plan and should address each program component. 3. Multiplier effect/impact: Proposals should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and individual linkages. The proposed strategy should maximize the Program's potential to maintain community college links with Egyptian alumni. 4. Support of Diversity: Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). 5. Institutional Capacity and Ability: Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program's goals. Proposals should describe the applicant's knowledge of, or prior experience with, students from Egypt, and the applicant's experience in educating students in the targeted subject fields. Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs involving the hosting of international students, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants or cooperative agreements. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 6. Follow-on Activities: Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (without Bureau support) ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. Activities should include tracking and maintaining updated lists of all alumni and facilitating follow-up activities with alumni, including electronic list serves. 7. Project Evaluation: Proposals should include a plan and methodology to evaluate the program's degree of success in meeting program objectives, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. A draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. Successful applicants will be expected to submit intermediate reports after each project component is concluded, or quarterly, whichever is less frequent. 8. Cost-effectiveness: The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. All other items should be necessary and appropriate. Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through institutional direct funding contributions and private sector support. Budget estimates should be as accurate as possible over the full period of the cooperative agreement. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. Award Notices: Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an Assistance Award Document

(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant or cooperative agreement proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer, and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments”. OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations. OMB Circular No. A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants* . *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI.* VI.3. Reporting Requirements: You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports:

(1)Quarterly financial reports;

(2)Annual program reports for the first and second year of the agreement;

(3)And a final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. Cooperating organizations will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information). All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Karene Grad, Office of Global Educational Programs, ECA/A/S/U, Room 349, ECA/A/S/U-08-03, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, telephone 202-453-8643, fax 202-453-8891, e-mail *GradKX@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/A/S/U-08-03. Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice: The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: January 23, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-1752 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)revision of a current information collection. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on October 29, 2007, vol. 72, no. 208, pages 61198-61199. The DOT/FAA certification program is implemented by Title 14 CFR parts 61 and 67. The parts prescribe minimum airman medical standards, and duration of a medical certificate. DATES: Please submit comments by March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at *Carla.Mauney@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)*Title:* Medical Standards and Certification. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0034. *Form(s):* FAA Forms 8500-7, 8500-8, 8500-14, 8500-20. *Affected Public:* An estimated 380,000 Respondents. *Frequency:* This information is collected on occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* Approximately 1.3 hours per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 573,076 hours annually. *Abstract:* The DOT/FAA certification program is implemented by Title 14 CFR parts 61 and 67. The parts prescribe minimum airman medical standards, and duration of a medical certificate. Information collected substantiates the applicant's eligibility. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or faxed to

(202)395-6974. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2008. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES-200. [FR Doc. 08-426 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

Notice of intent
Notices

15 references not yet in our index

45 CFR 614
10 CFR 54
10 CFR 2
10 CFR 52
10 CFR 51
10 CFR 81
10 CFR 50
10 CFR 73
10 CFR 70
17 CFR 240.19
17 CFR 240.10
Pub. L. 87-256
22 CFR 62
Pub. L. 104-319
Pub. L. 106-113

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment

Cite45 CFR 614

Cite10 CFR 54

Cite10 CFR 2

Cites 38 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources