Notices. Notice of request for extension of OMB approval

24,429 words·~111 min read·/register/2008/02/01/08-473

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Liability for Termination of Single-Employer Plans AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of request for extension of OMB approval. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information in its regulation on Liability for Termination of Single-Employer Plans, 29 CFR Part 4062 (OMB control number 1212-0017; expires February 29, 2008).

This notice informs the public of the PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Copies of the collection of information may also be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address or by visiting the Disclosure Division or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) PBGC's regulation on Liability for Termination of Single-employer Plans may be accessed on PBGC's Web site at *http://pbgc.gov/practitioners/law-regulations-informal-guidance/content/page14767.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas H. Gabriel, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4062 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 provides that the contributing sponsor of a single-employer pension plan and members of the sponsor's controlled group (“the employer”) incur liability (“employer liability”) if the plan terminates with assets insufficient to pay benefit liabilities under the plan. The PBGC's statutory lien for employer liability and the payment terms for employer liability are affected by whether and to what extent employer liability exceeds 30 percent of the employer's net worth. Section 4062.6 of the PBGC's employer liability regulation (29 CFR 4062.6) requires a contributing sponsor or member of the contributing sponsor's controlled group who believes employer liability upon plan termination exceeds 30 percent of the employer's net worth to so notify the PBGC and to submit net worth information. This information is necessary to enable the PBGC to determine whether and to what extent employer liability exceeds 30 percent of the employer's net worth. The collection of information under the regulation has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0017 (expires February 29, 2008). The PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PBGC estimates that an average of five contributing sponsors or controlled group members per year will respond to this collection of information. The PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information will be 12 hours and $3,636 per respondent, with an average total annual burden of 60 hours and $18,120. Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of January, 2008. John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-1874 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P POSTAL SERVICE Change in Rates of General Applicability for a Competitive Product AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Notice of a change in rates of general applicability for a competitive product. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth changes in rates of general applicability for a competitive product, specifically the establishment of prices for a Priority Mail large-sized flat-rate box. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr., 202-268-2989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 17, 2008, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established prices for a new large-size Priority Mail flat-rate box. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with section 3632(b)(2). Implementing regulations are published elsewhere in this issue. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Priority Mail Large Flat-Rate Box (Governors' Decision No. 08-1) January 17, 2008. Statement of Explanation and Justification Pursuant to our authority under section 3632 of title 39, as amended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, we establish the following prices for a new, larger (approximately 1/2 cubic foot) Priority Mail flat-rate box: $12.95 for domestic mail destined to most ZIP Codes, $10.95 for domestic mailed destined to APO/FPO ZIP Codes, $29.95 for international mail destined to Mexico and Canada, and $49.95 for international mail destined to all other countries. We have reviewed the attached analysis provided by management and have evaluated this change in accordance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 3632-3633 and 39 C.F.R. § 3015.2, which address changes in rates of general applicability for competitive services. As background, we first approved the domestic flat-rate box as an experiment more than three years ago. 1 Subsequently, we concluded that the experiment was a success, and we approved a permanent classification for the flat-rate box as part of the recent omnibus rate case. 2 The existing box has a volume of 0.34 cubic feet, with a price of $8.95. 3 The Postal Service extended the flat-rate box to international mail in May 2007, at prices of $23.00 for mail destined to Canada and Mexico, and $37.00 for mail destined to all other countries. 1 Governors' Decision on Docket No. MC2004-2 (October 29, 2004). 2 Governors' Decision on Docket No. R2006-1, at 13-14 (March 19, 2007). 3 Governors' Decision on Reconsideration, Docket No. R2006-1, at 1-2 (May 2, 2007). The Priority Mail flat-rate box has proven to provide value to customers in the form of convenience and ease of use and has made a positive contribution to postal finances. This success suggests a place for an additional Priority Mail flat-rate box. Such an offering would enhance customer choice, convenience and ease of use. The larger box will have a cubic capacity of approximately 1/2 cubic foot, or about 50 percent more than the current flat-rate box. As indicated in the attached analysis, the addition of this new option will benefit the Priority Mail flat-rate box rate category. Moreover, the lower rate for APO/FPO-destined ZIP Codes is justified by the analysis, and provides an opportunity for the Postal Service to assist American troops stationed abroad and their families. Establishment of the larger flat-rate box is a minor change that does not raise an issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products. (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)). The change will have no negative effects on the ability of Priority Mail or Priority Mail International to cover attributable costs (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2)), or for competitive products as a whole to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3015.7(c), requires competitive products to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Order The prices specified above for the new flat-rate Priority Mail box shall be effective March 3, 2008. We direct the Secretary to have this decision published in the Federal Register in accordance with 39 U.S.C. § 3632(b)(2). We also direct management to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission appropriate notice of this change. By The Governors: James C. Miller III, *Chairman.* Analysis of the Priority Mail Large Flat-Rate Box DOMESTIC The Priority Mail large flat-rate box is 0.52 cubic feet (exterior), with dimensions of 12 1/4 ” x 12 1/4 ” x 6” exterior and 12” x 12” x 5 1/2 ” interior. Pricing • $10.95 for Priority Mail shipments to APO/FPO addresses. • $12.95 for Priority Mail shipments to all other addresses. Estimated Profitability [FY 2007 Basis] Non-APO/FPO addresses APO/FPO addresses Price $12.95 $10.95 Est. Unit Cost $8.03 $8.46 Est. Unit Contribution $4.92 $2.49 Implicit Cost Coverage 161% 129% Note: Calculations include the incremental cost of packaging (over and above the approximately 10 cents per piece “baked in” to every Priority Mail rate cell). Support for the Domestic Prices Given the most recent price change, estimated domestic Priority Mail cost coverage is currently in the range of 135 to 140 percent. The $12.95 price reflects a premium comparable to that established for the original flat-rate box in 2004, which proved sufficient to protect against the risk of contribution leakage. A preferential $10.95 price is offered for shipments to APO/FPO addresses. These shipments account for only seven percent of total current flat-rate box volume. The price is sufficient to provide adequate contribution because of the unique demand characteristics of care-package shipments. Compliance With Relevant Law By sheer weight of volume, the primary use of the larger flat-rate box will be for general domestic Priority Mail shipments. Based on experience with the existing flat-rate box, the premium built into the $12.95 price is likely to produce an increase in contribution. Some contribution leakage is likely to result from lower-volume APO/FPO applications, but the amount should be minimal. As shown above, the Priority Mail large flat-rate box will easily cover its costs. Therefore, the domestic Priority Mail large flat-rate box is not expected to raise an issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)); or undermine the ability of Priority Mail to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2)); or undermine the ability of competitive products as a whole to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR § 3015.7(c), requires competitive products to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's total institutional costs. INTERNATIONAL The same flat-rate box will be used for Priority Mail International (PMI). Pricing • $29.95 for Priority Mail International shipments to Canada and Mexico. • $49.95 for Priority Mail International shipments to the rest of the world. Estimated Profitability [FY 2007 Basis] Canada and Mexico All other countries Price $29.95 $49.95 Est. Unit Cost $21.46 $39.83 Est. Unit Contribution $8.49 $10.12 Implicit Cost Coverage 140% 125% Support for the International Prices The estimated overall Priority Mail International cost coverage is 128 percent. The Canada and Mexico price of $29.95 and the Rest-of-the-World price of $49.95 yield a weighted-average implicit cost coverage the same as PMI as a whole, 128 percent. The risk of contribution leakage is contained by the imposition of a 20-pound weight limit. Compliance With Relevant Law The Priority Mail large flat-rate box will represent a small percentage of total Priority Mail International

(PMI)volume. It, therefore, can have only a limited effect on total contribution, but it is designed to increase contribution by having a price set approximately at the average for similar-weight PMI pieces. It may also increase contribution by increasing total PMI usage. Any potential for contribution loss is partially offset by the imposition of a 20-pound limit. As shown above, the large flat-rate box will easily cover its costs. Therefore, the Priority Mail International large flat-rate box will not raise an issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)); or undermine the ability of Priority Mail International to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2)); or undermine the ability of competitive products as a whole to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR § 3015.7(c), requires competitive products to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Certification of Governors' Vote in the Governors' Decision No. 08-1 I hereby certify that the following Governors voted by paper ballot on adopting Governors' Decision No. 08-1: Mickey D. Barnett James H. Bilbray Carolyn Lewis Gallagher Louis J. Giuliano Alan C. Kessler Thurgood Marshall, Jr. James C. Miller III Katherine C. Tobin Ellen C. Williams The vote was 9-0 in favor. Wendy A. Hocking, Secretary of the Board of Governors. [FR Doc. E8-1778 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P POSTAL SERVICE Change in Rates of General Applicability for a Competitive Product AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Notice of a change in rates of general applicability for a competitive product. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth changes in rates of general applicability for a competitive product, specifically the establishment of a premium for guaranteed delivery of Express Mail pieces on a Sunday or holiday. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr., 202-268-2989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 17, 2008, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established a premium for guaranteed Sunday or holiday delivery of Express Mail pieces. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with § 3632(b)(2). Implementing regulations are published elsewhere in this issue. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on a Premium For Express Mail Pieces Guaranteed for Delivery on a Sunday or Holiday (Governors' Decision No. 08-2) January 17, 2008 Statement of Explanation and Justification Pursuant to our authority under section 3632 of title 39, as amended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, we establish a premium of $12.50 above the current price for delivery of non-manifest Express Mail pieces that are guaranteed for delivery on a Sunday or holiday. We have reviewed the attached analysis provided by management and have evaluated this change in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632-3633 and 39 CFR 3015.2, which address changes in rates of general applicability for competitive services. As indicated in the attached analysis, Express Mail pieces guaranteed for delivery on a Sunday or holiday pay the same price as pieces guaranteed for Monday through Saturday delivery, even though the Postal Service incurs additional costs of $5.50 for such pieces. The Postal Service is the only carrier in the highly competitive express delivery market that offers delivery on Sundays, as well as many holidays. The Postal Service's competitors charge at least $12.50 for items that are guaranteed for delivery on Saturday, a day on which they do not ordinarily provide delivery. The analysis of demand and contribution in the attachment indicates that it is likely a $12.50 premium on non-manifest Express Mail pieces presented for Sunday or holiday delivery will result in a net gain in contribution for both Express Mail service and for competitive products as a whole. Based on this analysis, we find that this proposal complies with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a): The fee does not raise an issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)); approving it would have no negative effects on the ability of Express Mail to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)); and it would not negatively effect the ability of competitive products as a whole to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR 3015.7 (c), requires competitive products to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Indeed, the analysis indicates that this change should result in increased contribution for the Express Mail product, and for competitive products as a whole. Order Effective March 3, 2008, a premium of $12.50 shall be added to the price of each non-manifest Express Mail piece that is guaranteed for delivery on a Sunday or holiday. We direct the Secretary to have this decision published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(2). We also direct management to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission appropriate notice of this change. By the Governors: EN01FE08.027 Analysis of the Express Mail Sunday/Holiday Premium The U.S. Postal Service currently accepts approximately 433,000 Express Mail pieces per year for Sunday or holiday delivery. A Sunday delivery costs the Postal Service $5.50 more than a Monday-Saturday delivery. A premium for Express Mail pieces committed for delivery on Sunday or a holiday is sustainable in the marketplace, and would allow the Postal Service to capture additional value provided by a unique, premium service. A $12.50 premium will be accepted by customers, generate additional contribution for the Postal Service, and provide protection from risk. Price and Service Advantages in the Marketplace The Postal Service is the only carrier to offer Sunday delivery, as well as delivery on many holidays. Other carriers impose a surcharge for Saturday delivery. UPS and FedEx currently charge an additional $12.50 for Saturday delivery; DHL charges $15.00. The Express Mail Sunday/Holiday premium would be equal to or less than what competitors charge for Saturday delivery. The $12.50 charge also represents less of a premium over Monday-Saturday average prices than the surcharge other carriers charge for Saturday delivery. A charge of $12.50 represents a 72 percent premium over the current average Express Mail price, while the same amount adds 81 percent to the average price of an overnight FedEx or UPS parcel. Rationale for the Premium Amount $12.50 is a price point at which we can capture substantial contribution without diverting customers away from postal services. Because the premium represents the value of delivering on a non-business day and is equal to or lower than what competitors charge for a similar service, customers will likely accept a charge at this level. There may be different demand for Sunday delivery than for other days of the week. Although overall Express Mail volume has decreased approximately 12 percent since the May 2007 rate change, volume for Sunday has actually risen more than 10 percent. Given the small volume delivered on Sunday, firm conclusions about elasticity cannot be drawn, yet the increase does suggest that Sunday Express Mail pieces are less price sensitive than the rest of Express Mail. A $12.50 premium also provides protection in the event that Sunday delivery costs do not decrease quickly in response to a change in volume. Although there is currently a $5.50 cost difference between a Sunday delivery and a Monday-Saturday delivery, a reduction in Sunday deliveries may not result in short-term cost reductions, as staffing plans cannot be changed immediately, and because minimum staffing will need to be maintained. A premium of $12.50 provides additional margin to cover those costs. Using data from the *FY 2007 Cost and Revenue Analysis* , and elasticities from the Docket No. R2006-1 omnibus rate case, a premium of $12.50 on non-manifest Express Mail pieces guaranteed for Sunday or holiday delivery will likely yield a pro-forma contribution increase between $3.1 million and $3.8 million. This increase results from additional revenue generated by the premium plus net cost savings from pieces that move out of Sunday delivery. Manifest pieces are exempt from the premium because the small number of these pieces does not justify changing the manifest system at this time. Analysis of Sunday Delivery Demand and Contribution Applying the system-wide Express Mail own-price elasticity implies a volume loss of slightly less than 250,000 Express Mail pieces; rather than disappear, however, the vast majority of these pieces will move into Express Mail guaranteed for Monday (or day after holiday) delivery or into Priority Mail. Express Mail pieces that move to Monday still increase contribution despite the lack of a premium, because of the extra cost of Sunday delivery. Contribution from pieces that migrate into Priority Mail will decrease only about 78 cents per piece, on average. There is some risk to these projections. Assuming that 90 percent of the volume lost from Express Mail on Sunday will migrate to Monday delivery (about two-thirds) or Priority Mail (about 23 percent), and therefore stay within the Postal system. It will provide at least some contribution. It is possible, however, that these pieces might either switch to another carrier or disappear altogether (for instance, through electronic diversion of bill payments). To the extent that this possibility is underestimated, the net contribution increase resulting from the premium would be overestimated. If no lost volume migrates to Monday delivery, contribution gain will nonetheless be about half of the estimate, assuming that this Express Mail volume has an own-price elasticity of demand equal to or lower than that of Express Mail as a whole. If that assumption is not valid, contribution gain from the premium will be lower, though the price response would have to be more than twice that of the product as a whole before we would be at risk of a net loss of contribution. These factors support the conclusion that a $12.50 premium on non-manifest Express Mail presented for Sunday or holiday delivery will result in a net gain in contribution for both Express Mail and for competitive products as a whole. Compliance With Relevant Law Because the premium will likely increase contribution for both Express Mail and for competitive products as a whole, this new premium will not raise an issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), or have a negative effect on the ability of Express Mail to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), or for competitive products as a whole to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR 3015.7 (c), requires competitive products to cover a minimum of 5.5 percent to the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Certification of Governors' Vote in the Governors' Decision No. 08-2 I hereby certify that the following Governors voted by paper ballot on adopting Governors' Decision No. 08-2: Mickey D. Barnett James H. Bilbray Carolyn Lewis Gallagher Louis J. Giuliano Alan C. Kessler Thurgood Marshall, Jr. James C. Miller III Katherine C. Tobin Ellen C. Williams The vote was 9-0 in favor. Dated: January 17, 2008. Wendy A. Hocking, Secretary of the Board of Governors. [FR Doc. E8-1781 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 206(4)-4; SEC File No. 270-304; OMB Control No. 3235-0345. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. The title for the collection of information is “Rule 206(4)-4” (17 CFR 275.206(4)-4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 *et seq.* ). Rule 206(4)-4 requires advisers to disclose certain financial and disciplinary information to clients. The disclosure requirements in rule 206(4)-4 are designed so that a client will have information about an adviser's financial condition and disciplinary events that may be material to an evaluation of the adviser's integrity or ability to meet contractual commitments to clients. Respondents are registered investment advisers with certain disciplinary history or a financial condition that is reasonably likely to affect contractual commitments. We estimate that approximately 1,839 advisers are subject to this rule. The rule requires approximately 7.5 burden hours per year per adviser and amounts to approximately 13,793 total burden hours (7.5 × 1,839) for all advisers. The disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-4 do not require recordkeeping or record retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule are mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-4 is not submitted to the Commission. Accordingly, the disclosures pursuant to the rules are not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(i)maintain permanently a written copy of the procedures adopted by the board for complying with the requirements of the rule; and

(ii)maintain for a period of six years a written record of each transaction subject to the rule, setting forth: the amount and source of the commission; fee or other remuneration received; the identity of the broker; the terms of the transaction; and the materials used to determine that the transactions were effected in compliance with the procedures adopted by the board. The Commission's examination staff uses these records to evaluate transactions between funds and their affiliated brokers for compliance with the rule. The Commission staff estimates that 3583 portfolios of approximately 649 fund complexes use the services of one or more subadvisers. Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 6 hours to draft and execute revised subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 17e-1. 1 The staff assumes that all existing funds amended their advisory contracts following amendments to rule 17e-1 in 2002 that conditioned certain exemptions upon these contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds. 2 1 Rules 12d3-1, 10f-3, 17a-10, and 17e-1 require virtually identical modifications to fund advisory contracts. The Commission staff assumes that funds would rely equally on the exemptions in these rules, and therefore the burden hours associated with the required contract modifications should be apportioned equally among the four rules. 2 We assume that funds formed after 2002 that intended to rely on rule 17e-1 would have included the contract provision in their initial subadvisory contracts. Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year. 3 Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours 4 to draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 17e-1. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 12d3-1, 10f-3, 17a-10, and because we believe that funds that use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 17e-1 for this contract change would be 0.75 hours. 5 Assuming that all 600 funds that enter into new subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification requirement will result in 450 burden hours annually, with an associated cost of approximately $131,400. 6 3 The use of subadvisers has grown rapidly over the last several years, with approximately 600 portfolios that use subadvisers registering between December 2005 and December 2006. Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 31 percent of funds are advised by subadvisers. 4 The Commission staff's estimates concerning the wage rates for attorney time are based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry Association. The $292 per hour figure for an attorney is from the SIA Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2006, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. 5 This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours 4 rules = .75 hours). 6 These estimates are based on the following calculations: (0.75 hours × 600 portfolios = 450 burden hours); ($292 per hour × 450 hours = $131,400 total cost). Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 300 funds use at least one affiliated broker. Based on conversations with fund representatives, the staff estimates that rule 17e-1's exemption would free approximately 40 percent of transactions that occur under rule 17e-1 from the rule's recordkeeping and review requirements. This would leave approximately 180 funds (300 funds × .6 = 180) still subject to the rule's recordkeeping and review requirements. The staff estimates that each of these funds spends approximately 60 hours per year (40 hours by accounting staff, 15 hours by an attorney, and 5 director hours) 7 at a cost of approximately $10,495 per year to comply with rule 17e-1's requirements that

(i)the fund retain records of transactions entered into pursuant to the rule, and

(ii)the fund's directors review those transactions quarterly. 8 We estimate, therefore, that the total yearly hourly burden for all funds relying on this exemption is 10,800 hours, 9 with yearly costs of approximately $1,889,100. 10 Therefore, the annual aggregate burden hour associated with rule 17e-1 is 11,250, 11 and the annual aggregate cost associated with it is $2,020,500. 12 7 The Commission staff's estimates concerning the wage rate for professional time are based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry Association. The $292 per hour estimate for an attorney, $116 per hour estimate for accountant time, and $295 per hour estimate for directors (based on comparable position) is from the SIA Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2006, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. 8 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (40 hours accounting staff × $116 per hour = $4640) (15 hours by an attorney × $292 per hour = $4380); (5 hours by directors × $295 = $1475) ($4640 + $4380 + $1475 = $10,495 total cost). 9 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (180 funds × 60 hours = 10,800). 10 This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($10,495 × 180 funds = $1,889,100). 11 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (450 hours + 10,800 hours = 11,250 total hours). 12 This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($131,400 + $1,889,100= $2,020,500). The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 28, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1841 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W; SEC File No. 270-40; OMB Control No. 3235-0313. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The title for the collection of information is “Rule 203-2 (17 CFR 275.203-2) and Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).” Rule 203-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 establishes procedures for an investment adviser to withdraw its registration with the Commission. Rule 203-2 requires every person withdrawing from investment adviser registration with the Commission to file Form ADV-W electronically on the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”). The purpose of the information collection is to notify the Commission and the public when an investment adviser withdraws its pending or approved SEC registration. Typically, an investment adviser files a Form ADV-W when it ceases doing business or when it is ineligible to remain registered with the Commission. The potential respondents to this information collection are all investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-W imposes a total burden of approximately 0.75 hours (45 minutes) for an adviser filing for full withdrawal and approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) for an adviser filing for partial withdrawal. Based on historical filings, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 500 respondents annually filing for full withdrawal and approximately 500 respondents annually filing for partial withdrawal. Based on these estimates, the total estimated annual burden would be 500 hours ((500 respondents × .75 hours) + (500 respondents × .25 hours)). Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W do not require recordkeeping or records retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule and Form ADV-W are filings with the Commission. These filings are not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(iii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 28, 2007. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1843 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 203-3, Form ADV-H; SEC File No. 270-481; OMB Control No. 3235-0538. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The title for the collection of information is “Rule 203-3 and Form ADV-H under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.” Rule 203-3 (17 CFR 275.203-3) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b) establishes procedures for an investment adviser to obtain a hardship exemption from the electronic filing requirements of the Investment Advisers Act. Rule 203-3 requires every person requesting a hardship exemption to file Form ADV-H (17 CFR 279.3) with the Commission. The purpose of this collection of information is to permit advisers to obtain a hardship exemption, on a continuing or temporary basis, to not complete an electronic filing. The temporary hardship exemption permits advisers to make late filings due to unforeseen computer or software problems, while the continuing hardship exemption permits advisers to submit all required electronic filings on hard copy for data entry by the operator of the IARD. The respondents to the collection of information are all investment advisers that are registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-H imposes a total burden of approximately 1 hour for an adviser. Based on our experience with hardship filings, we estimate that we will receive 11 Form ADV-H filings annually. Based on the 60 minute per respondent estimate, the Commission estimates a total annual burden of 11 hours for this collection of information. Rule 203-3 and Form ADV-H do not require recordkeeping or records retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule and Form ADV-H consists of filings with the Commission. These filings are not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 28, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1844 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57207; File No. SR-ISE-2007-95] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, Relating to Reserve Orders January 25, 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 October 12, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The ISE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposal on January 17, 2008. 3 On January 25, 2008, the ISE filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 2 replaces the original filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. 4 Amendment No. 3 clarifies portions of the purpose section of the proposed rule change. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to add a new order type called Reserve Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.ise.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change* 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to implement a new order type called Reserve Orders. A Reserve Order is a single-sided limit order that resides in the Exchange's regular limit order book and has both a displayed portion and a non-displayed or reserve portion. The displayed portion would behave exactly like a regular order and would trade in accordance with the Exchange's standard allocation rules, *i.e.* , time priority for customers and pro-rata for non-customers. 5 The following examples illustrate how Reserve Orders will trade on the Exchange: 5 *See* ISE Rule 713 and Supplementary Material .01 thereto. *Example 1:* The Exchange's order book shows the following at the Best Bid: 10 contracts (100 contracts in reserve)—Customer 1 12 contracts—Customer 2 25 contracts—Competitive Market Maker 20 contracts (500 contracts in reserve)—Broker/Dealer An order comes in to sell 50 contracts at market. This order would be executed with the displayed customer orders trading in time priority followed by non-customers pro-rata, as follows: 10 contracts trade with Customer 1 12 contracts trade with Customer 2 16 contracts trade with Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”): This allocation is calculated as follows: (25/45) × 28, where the numerator

(25)is the number of contracts that a CMM is willing to trade, and the denominator

(45)is the number of contracts that are available for execution. The resulting number (0.5555) is then multiplied by the number of contracts that have not been executed (28). The remaining 11 contracts trade with the Broker/Dealer. *Example 2:* The Exchange's order book shows the same at the Best Bid as in Example 1: An order to sell 200 contracts at market will be executed as follows: 10 contracts trade with Customer 1 12 contracts trade with Customer 2 25 contracts trade with CMM 20 contracts trade with the Broker/Dealer 100 contracts (the entire reserve portion of Customer 1) trade with Customer 1 33 contracts (from the 500 contracts in reserve) trade with the Broker/Dealer When the displayed portion of a Reserve Order is decremented, either in full or in part, it shall be refreshed from the non-displayed portion of the resting Reserve Order. If the displayed portion is refreshed in part, the new displayed portion shall include the previously displayed portion. Upon any refresh, the entire displayed portion shall be ranked at the specified limit price, assigned a new entry time and given priority in accordance with Rule 713. The non-displayed portion of Reserve Orders shall be ranked based on the specified limit price and the time of order entry. Upon any refresh, any remaining non-displayed portion shall be assigned a new time stamp, same as that assigned to the newly displayed portion. The non-displayed portion of any Reserve Order is available for execution only after all displayed interest has been executed. The Exchange notes that the full size, *i.e.* , both the displayed and non-displayed portions, of an incoming Reserve Order will be available for execution if that incoming order is marketable. Further, in the event an incoming order is large enough to trade through all displayed quantities, the non-displayed quantities of all resting Reserve Orders will be eligible to trade, again in accordance with the Exchange's standard allocation rules. The Exchange believes that the new order type proposed in this rule change will provide greater flexibility to members to control their orders. By offering this new order type, members will be able to determine how much of their order they want disseminated at any point in time and help them eliminate the need to enter multiple orders in one series. The Exchange states that this new functionality will be purely voluntary and is similar to that currently offered 6 or proposed 7 by other options exchanges. 6 *See* NYSE Arca Rule 6.76(a). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55667 (April 25, 2007), 72 FR 23869 (May 1, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 To Establish Rules Governing the Trading of Options on the NASDAQ Options Market). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that this new order type will offer market participants new trading opportunities on the Exchange and enhance the Exchange's competitive position. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition* The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others* The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties. 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve the proposed rule change or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2007-95 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-95. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-95 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1834 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57204; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-05] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the One-Year Minimum Life Requirement From the Listing Standards for “Other Securities” January 25, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 15, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by NYSE. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.19 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (“Manual”), which sets forth the initial listing standards for “Other Securities,” to eliminate the requirement that securities listed thereunder must have a minimum life of one year. The text of the proposal is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change 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 III below, and the most significant aspects of such statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.19 of the Manual, which sets forth the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Other Securities,” to eliminate the requirement that securities listed thereunder must have a minimum life of one year. The Exchange seeks to make this change to harmonize Section 703.19 of the Manual with the comparable rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), none of which contain a minimum life requirement. 3 3 *See* NASDAQ Rule 4420(f), Section 107(A) of the Amex *Company Guide,* and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1), respectively. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change seeks to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by conforming NYSE's listing rules to those of its competitors, enabling the Exchange to compete for listings of securities that can currently be listed under the rules of the Exchange's competitors. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange states that written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2008-05 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-05. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-05 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that comparable rules of other national securities exchanges currently do not require such “Other Securities” to have a minimum life of one year. 8 6 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 8 *See supra* note 3. The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted above, the proposal seeks to harmonize the Exchange's initial listing standards for “Other Securities” with those of other national securities exchanges. The initial listing standards for “Other Securities” of such other national securities exchanges do not appear to present any new or significant regulatory concerns. Therefore, the Commission believes that accelerating approval of this proposal would allow the Exchange to trade such “Other Securities” without undue delay and should generate additional competition in the market for such products. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2008-05) be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1833 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57214; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-096] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Allocation of the Maximum Time an Adjudicatory Body May Grant a Company To Regain Compliance With the Listing Requirements Without Modifying the Maximum Time Available Under Nasdaq Rule 4802 January 28, 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 December 3, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify the allocation of the maximum time an adjudicatory body may grant a company to regain compliance with the listing requirements. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule immediately upon approval. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new language is italicized and proposed deletions are in brackets. 3 3 Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the electronic manual of Nasdaq found at *http://nasdaq.complinet.com* . 4802. Purpose and General Provisions

(a)No change.

(b)An issuer may file a written request for an exception to any of the standards set forth in the Rule 4000 Series at any time during the pendency of a proceeding under the Rule 4800 Series. A Listing Qualifications Panel may grant exceptions for a period not to exceed [the earlier of 90 days from the date of the Panel Decision or] 180 days from the date of the Staff Determination with respect to the deficiency for which the exception is granted, and the Listing Council may grant exceptions for a period not to exceed [the earlier of 60 days from the date of the Listing Council Decision or 180] *360* days from the date of the [Panel Decision] *Staff Determination* with respect to the deficiency for which the exception is granted, in each case where it deems appropriate. (c)—(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 III 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 Nasdaq proposes to modify provisions in the “Procedure for Review of Nasdaq Listing Determinations” relating to the allocation of the maximum time an adjudicatory body may grant a company to regain compliance with the listing requirements (“Exception Period”). This proposal would not increase the maximum time potentially available under the rule. Under the current rules, the Exception Period a Listing Qualifications Panel (“Panel”) can grant is limited to the lesser of 180 days from the date that Nasdaq staff sends a delisting letter (“Staff Determination”) or 90 days from the date of the Panel's decision in the matter. Similarly, the maximum Exception Period that the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council (“Listing Council”) can grant when reviewing a Panel decision is limited to the lesser of 180 days from the date of the Panel decision on review or 60 days from the date of the Listing Council's decision in the matter. As a result, while the maximum cumulative exception these bodies can grant is 360 days from the date of the Staff Determination, the actual amount of time can vary from company to company based on how quickly the company is scheduled for a hearing and the speed with which the Panel and Listing Council decisions are prepared. 4 This variability creates uncertainty for Nasdaq-listed companies and their investors regarding the maximum amount of time available under an exception. 4 These time frames are influenced by factors including the number of companies in the process at a given time and the availability of Panel or Listing Council members for the review and approval of drafts. In order to eliminate these differences and provide certainty to companies and investors regarding the Nasdaq delisting process, Nasdaq proposes to modify the computation of the maximum Exception Period such that the maximum time that a Panel can provide is 180 days from the date of the Staff Determination and the maximum time that the Listing Council can provide is 360 days from the date of the Staff Determination. As such, this proposal will eliminate the competing deadlines that are based on variable events, such as the amount of time it takes to schedule a hearing and issue decisions reflecting the Panel or Listing Council's conclusions. As is presently the case, these adjudicatory bodies may grant a company a shorter Exception Period, or no Exception Period at all, based on their analysis of the applicable facts and circumstances. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 5 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 in particular. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is designed to provide additional transparency to Nasdaq's process surrounding the review of delisting determinations, thereby protecting investors and removing an impediment to a free and open market. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. 6 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 impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-096 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-096. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2007-096 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1832 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57212; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Supplemental Market Participant Identifiers January 28, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on January 9, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to make permanent the pilot program that allows market makers and Electronic Communications Networks (“ECNs”) to obtain supplemental market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”). Nasdaq also proposes to remove any restrictions on the number of MPIDs market participants can request. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, the Commission's Public Reference Room and nasdaq.complinet.com. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis, for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Nasdaq proposes to make permanent the pilot program incorporated in Nasdaq Rule 4613(a)(2) (“Rule”) that allows market makers and ECNs to obtain supplemental MPIDs. The pilot inadvertently was permitted to lapse on November 30, 2006. The Rule has operated as a temporary pilot since it was first adopted in June 2003 and although the pilot lapsed, Nasdaq continued to apply the procedures set forth in the Rule and the related interpretive material. 3 The purpose of providing supplemental MPIDs is to provide quoting market participants a better ability to organize and manage diverse order flows from their customers and to route orders and quotes to Nasdaq's listed trading facilities from different units/desks. To the extent that this flexibility provides increased incentives to provide liquidity to Nasdaq systems, Nasdaq believes that all market participants benefit. Because the Rule has benefited market makers and ECNs and has not had any negative impact on the Nasdaq market in the more than four years that it has been in place, Nasdaq believes the Rule should become permanent. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47954 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34017 (June 6, 2003). *See also* IM-4613—Procedures for Allocation of Second Displayable MPIDs. Nasdaq also proposes to remove the current restriction in the Rule that limits the number of supplemental MPIDs that market makers and ECNs can request for displaying attributable quotes or orders. In accordance with the pilot program, market makers and ECNs may be issued a maximum of nine supplemental MPIDs. The reason for this restriction was a technological limitation that existed at the time the Rule was adopted, but this limitation no longer exists. Therefore, Nasdaq proposes to remove the restriction. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to remove IM-4613, which sets forth the procedures for allocating supplemental MPIDs. The removal of Nasdaq's technological limitation on the number of MPIDs for a given security makes the procedures unnecessary. The decision to remove any restriction on the number of supplemental MPIDs must be balanced against the need to protect the integrity of the Nasdaq market. Accordingly, market makers and ECNs would be prohibited from using a supplemental MPID to accomplish indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly through a single MPID. For example, members would not be permitted to use a supplemental MPID to avoid their Manning obligations under IM-2110-2, best execution obligations under Nasdaq Rule 2320, or their obligations under the Commission's Order Handling Rules. Members would be required to continue to comply with the firm quote rule, the OATS rules, and the Commission's order routing and execution quality disclosure rules. If it were determined that a supplemental MPID was being used improperly, Nasdaq would withdraw its grant of the supplemental MPID for all purposes for all securities. In addition, if a market maker or ECN were no longer to fulfill the conditions appurtenant to its primary MPID ( *e.g.* , by being placed into an unexcused withdrawal), it would not be permitted to use any supplemental MPID for any purpose in that security. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 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 mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. There no longer remains any market or technological need to restrict the number of MPIDs market participants can request. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 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 were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-004 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-2008-004. 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 at ( *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 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-2008-004 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1835 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57181; File No. SR-Amex-2007-132] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Include Volume Executed by Remote Quoting Towards the Earning of Remote Quoting Rights January 22, 2008. On November 30, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Amex Rule 994-ANTE to include the volume executed remotely by specialists and registered options traders (“ROTs) towards the earning of remote quoting rights in the Exchange's remote registered options trader (“RROT”) program (“RROT Program”). On December 13, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56974 (December 17, 2007), 72 FR 72803. The Exchange's RROT Program currently allows members or member organizations designated by the Exchange to be awarded remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically from locations other than the trading crowd where the applicable options class is traded on the Exchange's physical trading floor. 4 ROTs and specialists are currently awarded remote quoting rights based on quantitative criteria set forth in Amex Rule 994-ANTE. Specifically, specialists are awarded remote quoting rights based on Exchange floor volume executed, and their percentage of industry market share in the options in which they specialize. ROTs are awarded remote quoting rights based solely on floor volume executed. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53652 (April 13, 2006), 71 FR 20422 (April 20, 2006) (approving the Exchange's RROT Program). Currently, volume executed as a result of quoting remotely is not included in the calculation of remote quoting rights in Rule 994-ANTE. However, according to the Exchange, since the implementation of the RROT Program in May of 2006, volume is increasingly executed as a result of remote quotes entered by ROTs and specialists. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to reward those ROTs and specialists for the volume they execute as a result of quoting remotely, by including such volume towards the earning of additional remote quoting rights. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 5 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Volume executed as a result of quoting remotely, as well as volume executed on the floor, contributes to liquidity in a class. The Commission therefore believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to include volume executed remotely by specialists and ROTs in the calculation of remote quoting rights on the Exchange. 5 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-132), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, is approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1788 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57197; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Fees for CBOE Stock Exchange Permit Applicants January 24, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 15, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to modify its fees applicable to CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”) permit applicants. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the Exchange's Internet Web site at *http://www.cboe.org/legal* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the CBSX fee schedule to allow for a stand-alone fee for CBSX permit applicants. CBOE Rule 3.26 established the CBSX Permit Program which allows the Exchange to issue up to 100 trading permits that confer the ability to transact on CBSX without the necessity of acquiring a regular Exchange membership through purchase, lease, or otherwise. The CBSX fee schedule lists the fees applicable to CBSX users. Initially, CBSX permit applicants were charged application fees consistent with the CBOE Fee Schedule for new membership applications. The Exchange now seeks to establish a stand-alone CBSX permit application fee of $1000 that would cover all aspects of the application process. This fee amount provides a cost savings to CBSX permit applicants because it is less than the current costs assessed to CBOE new member applicants. The proposed rule change will be implemented Wednesday, January 16, 2008. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 7 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 8 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-06 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-06. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2008-06 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1789 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57203; File No. SR-CHX-2007-18] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Make Administrative Changes to Its Routing Rules January 25, 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 July 6, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the CHX. On January 22, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CHX proposes to amend its rules to make administrative changes that are designed to allow third-party routers to provide better service to their customers. The text of this proposed rule change is available at the CHX, on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm* , and in the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX 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 Under the Exchange's rules, the Exchange's Matching System will not execute an order if its execution would be improper under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Act (an “improper trade-through”). 3 Similarly, the Exchange's Matching System will not display an order if its display would improperly lock or cross other markets. 4 In these situations, the Exchange either cancels the order back to the participant that submitted it or routes the order to the destination of the participant's choice, all at the direction of the participant. 5 3 *See* Article 20, Rule 5. 4 *See* Article 20, Rule 6. 5 The participant is responsible for ensuring that it has a relationship with its chosen destination to permit the requested access. The Exchange is not involved in the execution of the order—any execution of the order is the responsibility of the destination to which the order was sent. The Exchange, however, reports any execution or cancellation of the order by the other destination to the participant that submitted the order and notifies the other venue of any cancellations or changes to the order submitted by the order-sending participant. *See* Article 20, Rule 5, Interpretation and Policy .03(b). Under this proposal, the Exchange seeks to make three administrative changes to its routing rules to permit these third-party routers to provide better service to their customers. The first proposed change would allow a participant and a routing destination to request that the CHX flip any executions into the participant's account and report that second leg of the away-market transaction to clearing. 6 This service would give the order-sending participant the option of consolidating its clearing reports in specific locations. 6 For example, if the Exchange routes a participant's buy order to the participant's chosen destination (Router ABC) and Router ABC gets an execution of that order in another market against market maker XYZ, the first leg of the transaction (ABC buying from XYZ) will be reported to clearing by the other market. The Router ABC would send an execution report back to the Exchange (for routing to the original order-sending participant). Under this proposal, if the participant and Router ABC had requested, the Exchange would take the execution report and create a clearing-only record, flipping the execution from Router ABC's account to the account of the order-sending participant (ABC selling to the order-sending participant). The second proposed change would allow the CHX (and a routing destination) to determine whether additional agreements with CHX participants are needed to implement the routing functionality for all orders, except a cross with satisfy or an outbound ISO. 7 While the CHX believes that most routing destinations will require that order-senders sign additional agreements for any services that the destinations might provide, the CHX wants to provide flexibility for destinations to make choices appropriate to their business models. 7 The routing of an outbound ISO or a cross with satisfy will be provided pursuant to the agreements described in section (c)(1) of Interpretation .03 to Rule 5, to the extent that the agreements are applicable to a specific routing decision. *See* Article 20, Rule 5, Proposed Interpretation and Policy .03(c)(1). Finally, the third proposed change would allow a participant to ask its chosen destination to use the participant's own give-up (rather than the routing destination's give-up) when routing orders to other markets as part of a cross with satisfy or an outbound ISO. 8 We believe that some participants—that already have good give-ups in other markets—might prefer that the routing service use those give-ups rather than its own. 8 *See* Article 20, Rule 5, Proposed Interpretation and Policy .03(c). The Exchange believes that these proposed changes do not substantially change the existing routing process, but instead simply provide additional flexibility to the third-party routing services that participants might desire to use. 9 9 Because these proposals do not make substantive changes to the Exchange's routing structure, the Exchange believes that its routing of orders to a participant's chosen destination would continue to be a facility of the Exchange, but the destinations chosen by each participant would not constitute Exchange facilities. 2. Statutory Basis The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b). 10 The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by allowing the Exchange to provide additional flexibility to its participants and the destinations to which the Exchange should route their orders. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or

(A)*NASD Rule 4613A and IM-4613A-1* NASD Rule 4613A(b) (Character of Quotations) provides that a Registered Reporting ADF electronic communications network (“ECN”) may request additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders and reporting trades through the ADF trade reporting facility, the Trade Reporting and Comparison Service, for any ADF-Eligible Security. A Registered Reporting ADF ECN that is permitted the use of additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders is subject to the same rules applicable to the member's first quotation ( *i.e.* , an ECN that displays one or more additional quotes/orders is required to comply with all rules applicable to ECNs in their display of quotes/orders). A Registered Reporting ADF ECN is also prohibited from using an additional MPID to accomplish indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly through its Primary MPID. In addition, FINRA staff retains full discretion to determine whether a bona fide regulatory and/or business need exists for being granted an additional MPID and to limit or withdraw the additional MPID display privilege at any time. The procedures for requesting, and the restrictions surrounding the use of, multiple MPIDs are set forth in IM-4613A-1 (Procedures for Allocation of Multiple MPIDs). The Commission approved NASD Rule 4613A(b) and IM-4613A-1 on a pilot basis on August 11, 2006. 5 By its terms, the initial pilot period expired on January 26, 2007. 6 On January 31, 2007, the Commission approved a one-year extension of the pilot period until January 25, 2008. 7 FINRA believes that an additional one-year extension until January 30, 2009, will provide additional time to analyze the use of multiple MPIDs on the ADF. FINRA is not proposing any other changes to the pilot as this time. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54307 (August 11, 2006), 71 FR 47551 (August 17, 2006). 6 The expiration of the pilot period coincided with the expiration of the ADF pilot period. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53699 (April 21, 2006), 71 FR 25271 (April 28, 2006). On January 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to make the ADF rules permanent. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55181 (January 26, 2007), 72 FR 5093 (February 2, 2007). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55206 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR 5479 (February 6, 2007).

(B)*NASD Rule 5140 and IM-5140* NASD Rule 5140 (Multiple MPIDs for Trade Reporting Facility Participants) provides that any Trade Reporting Facility Participant that wishes to use more than one MPID for purposes of reporting trades to a TRF must submit a written request to, and obtain approval from, NASD Operations for such additional MPIDs. In addition, IM-5140 (Use of Multiple MPIDs) states that FINRA considers the issuance of, and trade reporting with, multiple MPIDs to be a privilege and not a right. A Trade Reporting Facility Participant must identify the purpose(s) and system(s) for which the multiple MPIDs will be used. If FINRA determines that the use of multiple MPIDs is detrimental to the marketplace, or that a Trade Reporting Facility Participant is using one or more additional MPIDs improperly or for other than the purpose(s) identified by the Participant, FINRA staff retains full discretion to limit or withdraw its grant of the additional MPID(s) to such Trade Reporting Facility Participant. FINRA believes that Rule 5140 and IM-5140 are necessary to consolidate the process of issuing, and tracking the use of, multiple MPIDs used to report trades to TRFs. The Commission approved NASD Rule 5140 on a pilot basis on November 6, 2006. 8 By its terms, the pilot period expired on January 26, 2007. On January 31, 2007, the Commission approved a one-year extension of the pilot period until January 25, 2008. 9 FINRA believes that an additional one-year extension until January 30, 2009, will provide additional time to analyze the use of multiple MPIDs on the TRFs. FINRA is not proposing any other changes to the pilot as this time. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54715 (November 6, 2006), 71 FR 66354 (November 14, 2006); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54715A (November 14, 2006), 71 FR 67183 (November 20, 2006) (correcting original approval order). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55206 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR 5479 (February 6, 2007). FINRA is proposing to implement the proposed rule change on January 25, 2008. 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 10 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules 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. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these requirements because it will provide a process by which ECNs (in the case of the ADF) and Trade Reporting Facility Participants (in the case of TRFs) can request, and FINRA can properly allocate, the use of additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders through the ADF or reporting trades to a TRF. 10 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 impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others FINRA has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19-4(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. FINRA has satisfied this requirement. FINRA 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 extends without interruption the benefits of a pilot program that the Commission approved and previously extended. 13 Furthermore, the Commission agrees that extending the pilot for another year will provide additional time for FINRA to analyze the use of multiple MPIDs on the ADR. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 13 *See supra* notes 5 through 9. 14 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. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 15 15 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-FINRA-2008-003 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-FINRA-2008-003. 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-FINRA-2008-003 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1850 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6086] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: The Rhythm Road-American Music Abroad *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* March 20, 2008. *Executive Summary:* The Cultural Programs Division in the Office of Citizen Exchanges in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)announces an open competition for a cooperative agreement to administer The Rhythm Road-American Music Abroad program. The program will consist of up to ten tours for a selected number of professional American artists in jazz, urban music, and American roots music (e.g. country-western, bluegrass, zydeco, Cajun, etc.) The musicians selected for this program must demonstrate high artistic ability and be conversant with the broader aspects of contemporary American society and culture. Tours will include workshops, master classes, and outreach activities, in addition to concerts. U.S. public and non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals that support the goals of The Rhythm Road-American Music Abroad program: to promote mutual understanding and cross-cultural awareness. The tours accomplish this by providing an opportunity for international audiences to experience American musical life, highlighting our country's cultural history as well as the contemporary cultural scene, and allowing American performers to learn about life and culture in the foreign host countries. The Bureau is particularly interested in proposals for the administration of tours by jazz, urban, and American root music performers to countries with significant Muslim or underserved populations, and countries that engage youth and/or groups that influence youth. In the Western Hemisphere, we are also interested in proposals for projects that reach indigenous populations. No guarantee is made or implied that a grant will be awarded for tours to any particular region or that tours will be organized to any particular region. For this competition, all organizations must demonstrate a minimum of five years' experience successfully conducting international performing arts exchange programs in the music field to be eligible. I. Funding Opportunity Description *Authority:* Overall grant making 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 above is provided through legislation. *Purpose:* The Bureau seeks proposals to engage audiences overseas that do not normally have regular access to American cultural performances by presenting up to ten tours of Rhythm Road quartets. Musicians must be U.S. citizens who are at least 21 years old; demonstrate the highest artistic and musical ability; be conversant with broader aspects of contemporary American society and culture; and be adaptable to unescorted, rigorous touring through regions where travel and performance situations may be difficult. In addition to performances, Rhythm Road musicians will be expected to conduct or participate in master classes, lectures, workshops, impromptu musical sessions, radio and TV appearances, and other activities with local cultural institutions, musicians, media and students. A Washington, DC public performance by each ensemble in connection with the overseas tour should be included in the proposal. *Guidelines:* The successful applicant will organize the selection of up to ten quartets, as well as administer the international tour program during this period. Proposals should reflect a practical understanding of global issues, and demonstrate sensitivity to cultural, political, economic and social differences in regions where tour groups may perform. Special attention should be given to describing the applicant organization's experience with planning and implementing complex and unpredictable logistical scenarios overseas. Applicants should outline their project team's capacity for doing projects of this nature and provide a detailed sample program (to include itineraries) to illustrate planning capacity and ability to achieve program objectives. Applicants must identify all U.S. and foreign partner organizations and/or venues with whom they are proposing to collaborate, and describe previous cooperative projects in the section on “Institutional Capacity.” For this competition, applicants must include in their proposal supporting materials or documentation that demonstrates a minimum of five years experience in conducting global exchanges in the music field. Proposals must include references with name and contact information for other assistance awards the applicant has received, in the event the Bureau chooses to be in touch directly. ECA intends to give one assistance award to a qualified institution or organization to administer The Rhythm Road: American Music Abroad program globally. Activities funded through this cooperative agreement support the organization and implementation of up to ten

(10)international tours, and must include, but are not limited to: • Selection of artists; • Advance tour planning; • Programming educational, media and other outreach activities in consultation with U.S. embassies; • Scheduling public performance dates in Washington, DC, for each ensemble; • Assisting musicians with passport, visa, immunizations, and other pre-tour preparations; • Arranging and providing orientation sessions and pre-travel briefings, producing press materials and providing support for publicity while the artists are overseas; • Evaluating program activities; • Reporting on tour activities to ECA; • Assisting ensembles and embassies with follow-on program development. Applicants must have experience in global exchange planning and implementation, and should address the above elements in the proposal. The grantee must be highly responsive and able to work in close consultation with the Public Affairs Sections of the participating U.S. embassies. A pre-tour briefing session for each ensemble should be held with State Department regional experts and ECA program officers in attendance. This event should be scheduled in coordination with the Washington, DC public performance. Successful applicants will include with their proposal specific criteria for the selection of American artists in jazz, urban, and American root music styles. The Cultural Programs Division's activities and responsibilities for this program are as follows: • Participation in the selection of musicians. • Determination of the priority countries to which the tours will travel. Priority countries will be those in all world regions of greatest importance to the Department of State's public diplomacy mission to build mutual understanding. • Arrangement of participation by Department of State officers in pre-tour briefings and any debriefings that might take place. • Approval of all tour arrangements. 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:* FY-2008. *Approximate Total Funding:* $1,000,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Approximate Average Award:* $1,000,000. *Ceiling of Award Range:* $1,000,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* June 12, 2008. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* June 30, 2009. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to renew this cooperative agreement for two additional fiscal years before openly competing it again. 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). 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. 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 grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your contribution, 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 you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. *Other Eligibility Requirements:* (a.) Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates giving one award, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement this exchange program. Therefore, organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition. The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. (b.) Technical Eligibility: All proposals must comply with the following:

(1)Full adherence to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package;

(2)proposal submission deadline date;

(3)non-profit organization status, and;

(4)for purposes of this competition, at least five years of demonstrated experience in programming globally in the music field, or your proposal will be declared technically ineligible and given no further consideration in the review process. Eligible applicants may submit only ONE proposal (TOTAL) in response to this RFGP. If multiple proposals are received, all submissions will be declared technically ineligible and will be given no further consideration in the review process. 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 Cultural Programs Division (ECA/PE/C/CU) in the Office of Citizen Exchanges, Room 568, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 202/203-7488; fax 202/203-7525; e-mail *ProctorLM@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29 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 Instructions

(PSI)document which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. Please specify Jill Staggs and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29 located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. *To Download a Solicitation Package Via the 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 original and 14 copies (15 proposals total) of the application should be sent 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 PSI 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.1 *Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa:* The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the official program sponsor of the exchange program covered by this RFGP, and an employee of the Bureau will be the “Responsible Officer” for the program under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, which covers the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program (J visa program). Under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, organizations receiving grants under this RFGP will be third parties “cooperating with or assisting the sponsor in the conduct of the sponsor's program.” The actions of grantee program organizations shall be “imputed to the sponsor in evaluating the sponsor's compliance with” 22 CFR part 62. Therefore, the Bureau expects that any organization receiving a grant under this competition will render all assistance necessary to enable the Bureau to fully comply with 22 CFR part 62 et seq. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places critically important emphases on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should *explicitly state in writing* that the applicant is prepared to assist the Bureau in meeting all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62. If your organization has experience as a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor, the applicant should discuss their record of compliance with 22 CFR part 62 et. seq., including the oversight of their 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 Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA 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. 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 grantee 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 time frame), 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.) Grantees 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.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. The award may not exceed $1,000,000. There must be a summary budget, as well as breakdowns reflecting 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. For budgeting purposes, applicants should estimate costs based on eight to ten quartets traveling for approximately four

(4)weeks to six

(6)destinations with significant Muslim and indigenous populations in the following regions: Africa, East Asia, Eurasia, Central Europe and the Balkans, the Near East/North Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Final determination of participating regions and countries will be made by ECA in collaboration with U.S. embassies and the successful applicant after the assistance award has been given. IV.3e.3. *Allowable costs for the program include the following:*

(1)Program Expenses, including but not limited to: Domestic and international travel for the selected ensembles (per The Fly America Act); visas and immunizations; airport taxes and country entrance fees; honoraria; educational materials and presentation items; excess and overweight baggage fees; trip itinerary booklets; press kits and promotional materials; follow-on activities; monitoring and evaluation; and international travel for program implementation and/or evaluation purposes. The following guidelines may be helpful in developing a proposed budget: A. Travel Costs. International and domestic airfares. (per The Fly America Act), transit costs, ground transportation, and visas for The Rhythm Road: American Music Abroad participants to travel to the tour destinations. B. Per Diem: For the Washington, DC, portion of the tour, organizations should use the published Federal per diem rates, and estimate per diems based on a two-night stay per ensemble member. The Public Affairs Sections of the participating U.S. embassies and consulates are responsible for per diem abroad. Domestic per diem rates may be accessed at: *http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC* . C. Sub-grantees and Consultants. Sub-grantee organizations may be used, in which case the written agreement between the prospective grantee and sub-grantee should be included in the proposal. Sub-grants must be itemized in the budget under General Program Expenses. Consultants may be used to provide specialized expertise. Daily honoraria cannot exceed $250 per day, and applicants are strongly encouraged to use organizational resources, and to cost share heavily in this area. D. Health Insurance. Each Rhythm Road participant will be covered under the terms of the ECA-sponsored COINS health insurance policy. The cost for international travel insurance for staff travel may be included in the proposal budget. E. Honoraria for Rhythm Road musicians. Daily honorarium is $200 per day for each performer, including rest and travel days. F. Educational and Promotional Items. Ensemble members may use these funds for individual purchases or they may pool funds for joint purposes. ECA funds for educational and promotional items (e.g. CDS, guitar strings, label pins, etc.) should not exceed $500 per ensemble. G. Excess Baggage. Excess baggage costs are based on the size and weight of the instrument. Excess baggage estimates may be subject to change once actual tour itineraries are scheduled; however for proposal budget purposes, costs should be estimated at $3,500 per ensemble. H. Immunizations/Visas. For purposes of a proposed budget, line items for immunizations should be estimated at $400 per musician, and visas/visa photos should be estimated at $600 per musician. I. Press Kits. Each relevant U.S. embassy should receive appropriate contents for press kits. Items may be sent electronically with the understanding that in some cases, embassies may not be able to access large files or attachments. This line item may include funds for shooting and duplicating B&W publicity photos and duplicating CDS. J. Staff Travel. Allowable costs include domestic staff travel for one staff member to attend recruitment/selection events in approximately two U.S. cities and to pre-tour briefings and performances in Washington, D.C. International staff travel will be allowable, especially if associated with monitoring and evaluation, as long as costs for a full four-week tour for each ensemble are completely covered. Cost-sharing for staff travel is strongly encouraged. 2. Administrative Costs. Costs necessary for the effective administration of the program may include salaries for grantee organization employees, benefits, and other direct and indirect costs per detailed instructions in the Solicitation Package. While there is no rigid ratio of administrative to program costs, proposals in which the administrative costs do not exceed 25% of the total requested from ECA grant funds will be more competitive on cost effectiveness. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* Thursday, March 20, 2008. *Reference Number:* ECA/PE/C/CU-08-29. *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 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 14 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 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(s) at the U.S. embassies for their 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. *Program Planning and Ability to Achieve Objectives:* Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 2. *Multiplier Effect/Impact:* Proposed programs should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and establishment of long-term institutional and individual linkages. 3. *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). 4. *Institutional Capacity:* Proposals should include

(1)the institution's mission and date of establishment;

(2)an outline of prior awards—U.S. government and/or private support received for tours abroad;

(3)descriptions of experienced staff members who will be part of the team implementing the program, and;

(4)all other documentation requested herein. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals. The proposal should reflect the institution's expertise in the music management arena and knowledge of the conditions in the regions abroad. 5. *Institution's Record/Ability:* Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of at least five years of international music management planning and implementation, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 6. *Project Evaluation:* Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the activity's success, 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. 7. *Cost-effectiveness and Cost-sharing:* 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 other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions. 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 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 two copies of the following reports:

(1)A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award;

(2)Quarterly program and financial reports showing activities carried out and expenses incurred in the calendar quarter. Grantees 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: Jill Staggs, Cultural Programs, ECA/PE/C/CU, Room 568, ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 202/203-7493; fax 202/203-7525; *StaggsJJ@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/C-CU-08-29. 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. E8-1749 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Indiana AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), DOI. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and the USFWS that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project for a 13.1 mile segment of I-69, in the Counties of Warrick and Gibson, State of Indiana and grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that the FHWA and the USFWS have made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of those Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 30, 2008. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Anthony DeSimone, P.E., Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1576; telephone:

(317)226-5307; e-mail: *Anthony.DeSimone@dot.gov.* The FHWA Indiana Division Office's normal business hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t. For the USFWS: Mr. Scott Pruitt, Field Supervisor, Bloomington Field Office, USFWS, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, IN 47403-2121; telephone: 812-334-4261; e-mail: *Scott_Pruitt@fws.gov* . Normal business hours for the USFWS Bloomington Field Office are: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t. You may also contact Mr. Thomas Seeman, Project Manager, Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204; telephone:

(317)232-5336; e-mail: *TSeeman@indot.IN.gov.* Normal business hours for the Indiana Department of Transportation are: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has approved a Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)for section 1 of the I-69 highway project from Evansville to Indianapolis and issued a Record of Decision

(ROD)for section 1 on December 12, 2007. Section 1 of the I-69 project extends from the I-64/I-164/SR 57 interchange north of Evansville to approximately one-half mile north of SR 64 near Oakland City, Indiana. Section 1 is a new alignment, fully access-controlled highway that has an approximately 350-foot-wide right-of-way. The ROD selected Alternative 4 for section 1, as described in the *I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana, Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Evansville to Oakland City* (FEIS). The ROD also approved the locations of the interchanges, grade separations, and access roads (which include new roads, road relocations, and realignments). The FHWA had previously issued a Tier 1 FEIS and ROD for the entire I-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. A Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), DOI, was published in the **Federal Register** on April 17, 2007. A claim seeking judicial review of the Tier 1 decisions must have been filed by October 15, 2007, to avoid being barred under 23 U.S.C. 139(l). Decisions in the FHWA Tier 1 ROD that were cited in that **Federal Register** notice included, but were not limited to, the following: 1. Purpose and need for the project. 2. Range of alternatives for analysis. 3. Selection of the Interstate highway build alternative and highway corridor for the project, as Alternative 3C, 4. Elimination of other alternatives from consideration in Tier 2 NEPA proceedings. 5. Process for completing the Tier 2 alternatives analysis and studies for the project, including the designation of six Tier 2 sections and a decision to prepare a separate environmental impact statement for each Tier 2 section. The Tier 1 ROD and Notice specifically noted that the ultimate alignment of the highway within the corridor, and the location and number of interchanges and rest areas would be evaluated in the Tier 2 NEPA proceedings. Those proceedings for section 1 of the I-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis have culminated in the December 12, 2007, ROD and this Notice. Interested parties may consult the Tier 2, section 1 ROD and FEIS for details about each of the decisions described above and for information on other issues decided. The Tier 2, section 1 ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://www.i69indyevn.org/PDF/Section1/Section1_ROD.pdf* . People unable to access the Web site may contact FHWA or INDOT at the addresses listed above. Decisions in the Section 1, Tier 2 ROD that have final approval include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]. 2. Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544]. 3. Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 4. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q). 5. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 6. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) *et seq.* ]. Previous actions taken by the USFWS for the Tier 1, I-69 project, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, included its concurrence with the FHWA's determination that the I-69 project was not likely to adversely affect the eastern fanshell mussel ( *Cyprogenia stegaria* ) and that the project was likely to adversely affect, but not jeopardize, the bald eagle. The USFWS also concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and was not likely to adversely modify the bat's designated Critical Habitat. These USFWS decisions were described in the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on December 3, 2003, the Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on August 24, 2006, and other documents in the Tier 1 project records. A Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of these actions and decisions by the USFWS, DOI, was published in the **Federal Register** on April 17, 2007. For the Tier 2, section 1, 13.1 mile I-69 project in Gibson and Warrick Counties, an individual Biological Opinion was issued on August 29, 2007, that concluded that the Section 1 project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and was not likely to adversely modify the bat's designated Critical Habitat. In addition, the UFWS issued an Incidental Take Statement subject to specified terms and conditions. These opinions, and other project records relating to the USFWS actions, taken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, are available by contacting the FHWA, INDOT, or USFWS at the addresses provided above. The Tier 2, section 1, Biological Opinion can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://www.deis.i69indyevn.org/FEIS_Sec1/Appendix_Q2.pdf.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) Robert F. Tally Jr., Division Administrator, Indianapolis, Indiana. [FR Doc. E8-1811 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Sunshine Act Meeting; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. Time and Date: February 21, 2008, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at

(505)827-4565 to receive the toll free numbers and pass codes needed to participate in these meetings by telephone. Status: Open to the public. Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at

(505)827-4565. Dated: January 28, 2008. William A. Quade, Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery. [FR Doc. 08-473 Filed 1-30-08; 9:39am]

Connectionstraces to 22

Traces to 22 documents

CFR