Notices. Notice

62,030 words·~282 min read·/register/2008/05/07/08-1235

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

BILLING CODE 4120-01-C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0272] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry: Notification of a Health Claim or Nutrient Content Claim Based on an Authoritative Statement of a Scientific Body AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information associated with the submission of notifications of health claims or nutrient content claims based on authoritative statements of scientific bodies of the U.S. Government. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration,5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:

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

(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Guidance for Industry: Notification of a Health Claim or Nutrient Content Claim Based on an Authoritative Statement of a Scientific Body (OMB Control Number 0910-0374)—Extension Section 403(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C)), as amended by the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, provides that any person may market a food product whose label bears a nutrient content claim or a health claim that is based on an authoritative statement of a scientific body of the U.S. Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under this section of the act, a person that intends to use such a claim must submit a notification of its intention to use the claim 120 days before it begins marketing the product bearing the claim. In the **Federal Register** of June 11, 1998 (63 FR 32102), FDA announced the availability of a guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Notification of a Health Claim or Nutrient Content Claim Based on an Authoritative Statement of a Scientific Body.” The guidance provides the agency's interpretation of terms central to the submission of a notification and the agency's views on the information that should be included in the notification. The agency believes that the guidance will enable persons to meet the criteria for notifications that are established in section 403(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C) of the act. In addition to the information specifically required by the act to be in such notifications, the guidance states that the notifications should also contain information on analytical methodology for the nutrient that is the subject of a claim based on an authoritative statement. FDA intends to review the notifications the agency receives to ensure that they comply with the criteria established by the act. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1** .— **Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 Section of the Act/Basis of Burden No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours Per Response Total Hours 403(r)(2)(G) (nutrient content claims) 1 1 1 250 250 403(r)(2)(C) (health claims) 2 1 2 450 900 Guidance for notifications 3 1 3 1 3 Total 1,153 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. These estimates are based on FDA's experience with health claims, nutrient content claims, and other similar notification procedures that fall under the agency's jurisdiction. FDA estimates that it will receive one nutrient content claim notification and two health claim notifications per year. Section 403(r)(2)(G) and 403(r)(3)(C) of the act requires that the notification include the exact words of the claim, a copy of the authoritative statement, a concise description of the basis upon which such person relied for determining that this is an authoritative statement as outlined in the act, and a balanced representation of the scientific literature relating to the relationship between a nutrient and a disease or health-related condition to which a health claim refers or to the nutrient level to which the nutrient content claim refers. This balanced representation of the scientific literature is expected to include a bibliography of the scientific literature on the topic of the claim and a brief, balanced account or analysis of how this literature either supports or fails to support the authoritative statement. Since the claims are based on authoritative statements of a scientific body of the Federal government or NAS, FDA believes that the information that is required by the act to be submitted with a notification will be readily available to a respondent. However, the respondent will have to collect and assemble that information. Based on communications with firms that have submitted notifications, FDA estimates that it will take a respondent 250 hours to collect and assemble the information required by the statute for nutrient content claim notifications and 450 hours to collect and assemble the information required by the statute for health claim notifications. Under the guidance, notifications should also contain information on analytical methodology for the nutrient that is the subject of a claim based on an authoritative statement. The guidance applies to both nutrient content claim and health claim notifications. FDA has determined that this information should be readily available to a respondent and, thus, the agency estimates that it will take a respondent 1 hour to incorporate the information into the notification. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: May 1, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-10180 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0269] Agency Emergency Processing Under Office of Management and Budget Review; Implementation of Sections 222, 223, and 224 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for emergency processing under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). The proposed collection of information concerns the requirement established by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), that device establishments must submit registration and listing information by electronic means using FDA Form 3673, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) grants them a waiver from the electronic submission requirement. DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or e-mailed to *baguilar@omb.eop.gov* . All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and title “Implementation of Sections 222, 223, and 224 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007; (21 U.S.C. 360); Emergency Request.” Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13)). Title II of FDAAA (Public Law 110-85), enacted September 27, 2007, amends section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360) to require all domestic and foreign device establishments to submit registration and device listing information to FDA by electronic means, and specifies the timeframes when establishments are required to submit such information. These new registration and listing requirements were in effect on October 1, 2007. The proposed collection of information concerns the information that owners/operators of device establishments must submit electronically in order to register their establishments and list their devices using FDA Form No. 3673. In addition, owners/operators seeking a waiver from the electronic submission requirements will need to submit a written request for a waiver to FDA with a complete explanation as to why their registration and listing information cannot be submitted electronically. See sections 222, 223, and 224 of FDAAA. Thus, FDA is requesting emergency processing of this new collection of information for electronic registration and listing, and information relating to requests for waivers. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics:

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

(2)the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Implementation of Sections 222, 223, and 224 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007; (21 U.S.C. 360); Emergency Request Sections 222, 223, and 224 of FDAAA, which were in effect on October 1, 2007, require that device establishment registrations and listings under section 510 of the FD&C Act (including the submission of updated information) be submitted to the Secretary by electronic means, unless the Secretary grants a request for waiver of the requirement because the use of electronic means is not reasonable for the person requesting the waiver. FDA expects that 20,000 to 30,000 device establishments will need to register electronically between now and December 31, 2008. Section 224 of FDAAA requires that these establishments also must have an opportunity request waivers. Thus, emergency approval of this request is necessary to implement these provisions of the statute. Section 222 of FDAAA amends section 510(b) of the FD&C Act to require domestic establishments to register annually during the period beginning October 1 and ending December 31 of each year. Section 222 of FDAAA also amends section 510(i)(1) of the FD&C Act to require foreign establishments to immediately register upon first engaging in one of the covered device activities described under the statute, and they must also register annually during the period beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31 of each year. In addition, section 223 of FDAAA amends section 510(j)(2) of the FD&C Act to require establishments to list their devices annually with FDA during the period beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31 of each year. Under FDAAA, device establishment owners/operators are required to keep their registration and device listing information up-to-date using the agency's new electronic system. Owners/operators of new device establishments must use the electronic system to create new accounts, new registration records, and new device listings. Section 224 of FDAAA amends section 510(p) of the FD&C Act by allowing a person affected to request a waiver from the requirement to register electronically when the “use of electronic means” is not reasonable for the person. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 Section of the 2007 Amendments FDA Form No. No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 222 2 3673 2,600 1 2,704 0.5 1,352 223 2 3673 24,382 1 24,382 0.25 6,095 224 2 29,370 1 29,370 0.75 22,028 224 3 2,600 1 2,600 0.5 1,300 224 (waiver request) 2 20 1 20 1 20 224 (waiver request) 3 1 1 1 1 1 Total Hours 30,796 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 One time burden. 3 Annual increase in burden. The estimates in table 1 of this document are based on FDA's experience, data from the device registration and listing database, and our estimates of the time needed to complete the previously required forms. We estimate that the time needed to enter registration and listing information electronically using FDA Form 3673 will not differ significantly from the time needed to fill in the paper forms (FDA Forms 2891, 2891a, and 2892) that previously were used for this purpose because the information required is essentially identical. In addition, under section 224 of FDAAA, device establishments owner/operators for whom registering and listing by electronic means is not reasonable may request a waiver from the Secretary. Because a device establishment's owner/operator required to register and list would only need to have access to a computer, Internet, and an e-mail address for registration and list by electronic means, the agency did not anticipate the receipt of a large number of requests for waiver. For the first few months of operation of the web-based system, i.e., October through December 2007, FDA received fewer than 10 requests for waivers from the requirement to submit registration and listing information electronically. As data for more than 16,000 establishments have been received electronically for the same period, these requests amount to less than 1 percent of the total number of establishments that have responded. Based on information taken from our databases, FDA estimates that there are 29,370 owner/operators who collectively register a total of 33,490 device establishments. The number of respondents listed for section 224 of FDAAA in the burden table is 29,370, which corresponds to the number of owner/operators who annually register one or more establishments. In addition, FDA estimates that 4,988 owner/operators are initial importers who must register their establishments but who, under FDA's existing regulations, are not required to list their devices unless they initiate or develop the specifications for the devices or repackage or relabel the devices. The number of respondents included in the burden table for section 223 of FDAAA is 24,382, which corresponds to the number of owner/operators who list one or more devices annually (29,370 - 4,988 = 24,382). To calculate the burden estimate for waiver requests under section 224 of FDAAA, we assume as stated previously that less than one tenth of one percent of the 33,490 total device establishments would request waivers from FDA. This means the total number of waiver requests would probably not exceed 20 requests (33,490 x 0.0006). We also estimate that the one-time burden on these establishments would be an hour of time for a mid-level manager to draft, approve, and mail a letter. In addition, FDA estimates the total number of establishments will increase by 2,600 new establishments each year. Of the 2,600 new registrants each year, we assume that less than one percent (i.e., 1) of these will also request waivers each year. The total, therefore, is 21 waiver requests, which could increase by only 1 additional request each year. Dated: May 1, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-10194 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0228] (formerly Docket No. 00D-1401) Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization.” The guidance describes FDA's current practices concerning the administrative aspects of categorizing commercially available in vitro diagnostic tests under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The guidance discusses what manufacturers should submit to help expedite CLIA categorization by FDA. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document entitled “Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Benson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0491, ext. 117. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On February 28, 1992, the Department of Health and Human Services published the final laboratory standards regulations (57 FR 7002) implementing CLIA (42 U.S.C. 263a). The implementing regulations are codified at 42 CFR part 493. CLIA regulates laboratory testing and requires that clinical laboratories obtain a certificate before accepting materials derived from the human body for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or the impairment of, or assessment of the health of human beings. The type of CLIA certificate a laboratory obtains depends upon the complexity of the tests it performs. CLIA regulations describe three levels of test complexity: Waived tests, moderate complexity tests, and high complexity tests. On January 31, 2000, the responsibility for categorization of commercially marketed in vitro diagnostic

(IVD)tests was transferred from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to FDA (64 FR 73561, December 30, 1999). This allows IVD test manufacturers to submit premarket (510(k)) notifications or applications and requests for complexity categorization under CLIA to one agency. This notice announces the availability of a guidance document that describes the general administrative procedures FDA uses to assign a device's complexity category under CLIA. The draft of this guidance was issued August 14, 2000, and the comment period closed on November 13, 2000. FDA did not receive any comments concerning the “Draft Guidance on Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization.” In preparing the final guidance, however, FDA needed to obtain an approval for a new collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We obtained this approval (see section IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995) and are now issuing the final guidance. Updates added to the guidance include a revised background section and procedures for CLIA categorization for 510(k) submissions submitted electronically. The guidance also notes that manufacturers who wish to request CLIA waiver for a device (other than those devices already waived under 42 CFR 493.15), should refer to the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Recommendations for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988

(CLIA)Waiver Applications for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices,” issued in January 2008. II. Significance of Guidance This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on administrative procedures for CLIA categorization. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations. III. Electronic Access Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. To receive “Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization,” you may either send an e-mail request to *dsmica@fda.hhs.gov* to receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to 240-276-3151 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1143 to identify the guidance you are requesting. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, **Federal Register** reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH web site may be accessed at *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh* . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html* . Guidance documents are also available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance were approved under OMB control number 0910-0607. V. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: April 30, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-10178 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Office of Biotechnology Activities; Recombinant DNA Research; Notice of a Meeting of an NIH Blue Ribbon Panel There will be a meeting of the NIH Blue Ribbon Panel to advise on the Risk Assessment of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) at Boston University Medical Center. The meeting will be held on Friday, May 16, 2008, at The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bureau of State Office Buildings, State House, Gardner Auditorium, 24 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02133, from approximately 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Discussions will include the charge to the Panel and the process and framework for deliberations. There will also be time allotted on the agenda for public comment. Sign up for public comment will begin at approximately 8 a.m. on May 16, 2008. In the event that time does not allow for all those interested to present oral comments, anyone may file written comments using the address below. To file written comments or for further information concerning this meeting contact Ms. Laurie Lewallen, Advisory Committee Coordinator, Office of Biotechnology Activities, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Mail Stop Code 7985, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985, 301-496-9838, *lewallla@od.nih.gov* The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed above in advance of the meeting. Any interested person may file written comments with the panel by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. An agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted on the agency's Web site: *http://www.nih.gov/about/director/acd/index.htm.* Background information may be obtained by contacting NIH OBA by e-mail *oba@od.nih.gov* Dated: April 29, 2008. Amy P. Patterson, Director, Office of Biotechnology Activities. [FR Doc. E8-10011 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee F—Manpower & Training; NCI-F Manpower and Training Grants. *Date:* May 19, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hilton Old Town Alexandria, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. *Contact Person:* Lynn M. Amende, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8105, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4759, *amendel@mail.nih.gov.* This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 30, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-10013 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4), and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Advisory Board. *Open:* June 17, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. *Agenda:* Program reports and presentations; Business of the Board. *Place:* National Cancer Institute, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Dr. Paulette S. Gray, Executive Secretary, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 8th Floor, Room 8001, Bethesda, MD 20892-8327,

(301)496-5147. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Advisory Board. *Closed:* June 17, 2008, 3:20 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* Review of grant applications. *Contact Person:* Dr. Paulette S. Gray, Executive Secretary, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 8th Floor, Room 8001, Bethesda, MD 20892-8327,

(301)496-5147. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Advisory Board. *Open:* June 18, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* Program reports and presentations; Business of the Board. *Contact Person:* Dr. Paulette S. Gray, Executive Secretary, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 8th Floor, Room 8001, Bethesda, MD 20892-8327,

(301)496-5147. Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page *http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab.htm* , where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 30, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-10014 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Toxicology Program (NTP); Office of Liaison, Policy and Review; Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). ACTION: Meeting announcement and request for comment. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of SACATM on June 18-19, 2008, at the Radisson Hotel Research Triangle Park, 150 Park Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The meeting is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 18 and 8:30 a.m. until adjournment on June 19. The meeting is open to the public with attendance limited only by the space available. SACATM advises the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), and the Director of the NIEHS and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. DATES: The SACATM meeting will be held on June 18 and 19, 2008. All individuals who plan to attend are encouraged to register online at the NTP Web site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/7441* ) by June 10, 2008. In order to facilitate planning, persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to notify Dr. Lori White, NTP Executive Secretary, via online registration, phone, or email by June 10, 2008 (see ADDRESSES below). Written comments should also be received by June 10 to enable review by SACATM and NIEHS/NTP staff before the meeting. ADDRESSES: The SACATM meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel Research Triangle Park, 150 Park Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 [hotel:

(919)549-8631]. Public comments and other correspondence should be directed to Dr. Lori White (NTP Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-9834 or e-mail: *whiteld@niehs.nih.gov* ). Courier address: NIEHS, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Room A326, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Persons needing interpreting services in order to attend should contact 301-402-8180 (voice) or 301-435-1908 (TTY). Requests should be made at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preliminary Agenda Topics and Availability of Meeting Materials Preliminary agenda topics include: • NICEATM-ICCVAM Update; • Overview of NICEATM-ICCVAM 5-Year Plan; • NRC Report: Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century; • Presentations from Federal Agencies on Research, Development, Translation, and Validation Activities Relevant to the NICEATM-ICCVAM Five-Year Plan; • Report on the ICCVAM-NICEATM Independent Scientific Peer Review Meeting: Validation Status of New Versions and Applications of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), a Test Method for Assessing the Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals and Products; • Report on the ICCVAM-NICEATM-ECVAM-JACVAM Scientific Workshop on Acute Chemical Safety Testing: Advancing In Vitro Approaches and Humane Endpoints for Systemic Toxicity Evaluations; • Nominations to ICCVAM: NTP Rodent Bioassay for Carcinogenicity; • Proposal for International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods; • Update from the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods; • Update from the European Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Methods, A copy of the preliminary agenda, committee roster, and additional information, when available will be posted on the NTP Web site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/7441* ) or available upon request (see ADDRESSES above). Following the SACATM meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and available on the NTP website or upon request. Request for Comments Both written and oral public input on the agenda topics is invited. Written comments received in response to this notice will be posted on the NTP Web site. Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation (if applicable), and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Time is allotted during the meeting for presentation of oral comments and each organization is allowed one time slot per public comment period. At least 7 minutes will be allotted for each speaker, and if time permits, may be extended up to 10 minutes at the discretion of the chair. Registration for oral comments will also be available on-site, although time allowed for presentation by on-site registrants may be less than for pre-registered speakers and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting. Persons registering to make oral comments are asked to do so through the online registration form ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/7441* ) and to send a copy of their statement to Dr. White (see ADDRESSES above) by June 10 to enable review by SACATM, NICEATM-ICCVAM, and NIEHS/NTP staff prior to the meeting. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 40 copies of the statement for distribution and to supplement the record. Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that use, generate, or disseminate toxicological information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the development, scientific validation, regulatory acceptance, implementation, and national and international harmonization of new, revised, and alternative toxicological test methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that refine, reduce, and replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 285l-3] established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM. NICEATM administers ICCVAM and provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found on their Web site ( *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* ). SACATM was established in response to the ICCVAM Authorization Act [Section 285l-3(d)] and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors. SACATM advises ICCVAM, NICEATM, and the Director of the NIEHS and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. SACATM provides advice on priorities and activities related to the development, validation, scientific review, regulatory acceptance, implementation, and national and international harmonization of new, revised, and alternative toxicological test methods. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings, can be found at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167.* Dated: April 28, 2008. Samuel H. Wilson, Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E8-10010 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Science and Technology Directorate; Notice of Public Meeting of the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program Governing Board AGENCY: Science and Technology Directorate, DHS. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security's

(DHS)Office for Interoperability and Compatibility

(OIC)will hold a public meeting of its Project 25

(P25)Compliance Assessment Program

(CAP)Governing Board (GB). The P25 CAP GB is composed of public sector officials who represent the collective interest of organizations that procure P25 equipment. The purpose of the meeting is to review and approve proposed Compliance Assessment Bulletin(s). The P25 CAP GB will receive public comments on the P25 CAP at this meeting. DHS OIC will post details of the meeting, including the agenda, ten business days in advance of the meeting at *http://www.safecomprogram.gov* . The meeting is open to the public, but space is limited. All participants must bring proper identification to attend the meeting. DATES: The meeting will take place on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EST). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium of the General Services Administration Building, 301 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20407. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Klein-Berndt, Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, Washington Navy Yard, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Building #410, Washington, DC 20528. Telephone:

(202)254-5332. E-mail: *Luke.Klein-Berndt@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Emergency responders—emergency medical services, fire personnel, and law enforcement officers—need to seamlessly exchange communications across disciplines and jurisdictions to successfully respond to day-to-day incidents and large-scale emergencies. P25 focuses on developing standards that allow radios and other components to interoperate, regardless of manufacturer. In turn, these standards enable emergency responders to exchange critical communications with other disciplines and jurisdictions. An initial goal of P25 is to specify formal standards for interfaces between the components of a land mobile radio

(LMR)system. (LMR systems are commonly used by emergency responders in portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted devices.) Although formal standards are being developed, no process is currently in place to confirm that equipment advertised as P25-compliant meets all aspects of P25 standards. To address discrepancies between P25 standards and industry equipment, Congress passed legislation calling for the creation of the P25 CAP. The P25 CAP is a partnership of the DHS Command, Control and Interoperability Division; the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology; industry; and the emergency response community. The P25 CAP works to establish a process for ensuring that equipment complies with P25 standards and can interoperate across manufacturers. By providing manufacturers with a method to test their equipment for compliance with P25 standards, the P25 CAP helps emergency response officials make informed purchasing decisions. The program's initial focus is on the Common Air Interface, which allows for over-the-air compatibility between mobile and portable radios, and tower equipment. For more information on the program, please review OIC's *Charter for the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program* , which is available at *http://www.safecomprogram.gov* . Dated: May 1, 2008. Luke Klein-Berndt, P25 CAP Program Manager. [FR Doc. E8-10214 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2008-0331] Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard

(USCG)and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)are sponsoring a two-day public workshop on marine technology and standards in Arlington, VA. This public workshop will provide a unique opportunity for classification societies, industry groups, standards development organizations, governments, and interested members of the public to come together for a professional exchange on topics ranging from technological impacts to the marine industry, corresponding coverage in related codes and standards, and existing government regulations. DATES: This public workshop will be held 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, and from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. This workshop is open to the public with advance registration required. ADDRESSES: The two-day workshop will be held at the Sheraton National Hotel near the Pentagon. The hotel is located at 900 South Orme Street in Arlington, VA, approximately one mile from the Pentagon City Metro Station. The hotel's phone number is

(703)521-1900. Shuttle service to and from the hotel may be available by contacting the hotel directly at the phone number above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about this workshop you may visit the USCG Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event* or contact Mr. Wayne Lundy by telephone at

(202)372-1379 or by e-mail at *Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this workshop is to provide a technical exchange on areas of technology that impact the marine industry with corresponding coverage in related codes and standards and existing government regulations. To register for this workshop, please visit the ASME Web site: *http://www.asmeconferences.org/asmeuscg08* . Registration deadline is May 23, 2008. While the workshop is open to the public, space is limited due to room capacity restrictions, so we encourage you to register in advance for this event. There is no fee for registration. Agenda of Meeting The workshop comprises six panel sessions conducted over a two-day period on a variety of topics. Day One—June 3, 2008

(1)Use of Compressed Natural Gas

(CNG)and Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG)for ship propulsion;

(2)Emerging technologies such as bio-fuels, use of fuel cells for ship propulsion, development of high pressure composite hydrogen pressure vessels, and exhaust gas cleaning systems for ships;

(3)Importation of CNG; Day Two—June 4, 2008

(4)Pressure vessels for human occupancy, including submersibles, diving bells, and acrylic windows;

(5)Pressure vessel and piping codes, including rewrite of ASME Section VIII-Division 2, API 570/ASME FFS-1 Fitness for Service, ASME B31.12—Code for Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines, and use of ASME Section VIII-Division 3; and

(6)Risk-based approaches and in-service examination of marine systems. Procedural This workshop is open to the public. Please note that the workshop may close early if all business is finished. Material presented at the workshop will be made available to the public on the USCG Web site at *http://www.uscg.mil/marine_even* for 30 days starting June 3. For additional information on material presented at this event, you may contact Mr. Wayne Lundy by telephone at

(202)372-1379 or by e-mail at *Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil.* Summaries of comments made, materials presented, and lists of attendees will be available on the docket at the conclusion of the 2 day meeting. To view comments and materials, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, enter the docket number “USCG 2008-0331” in the Search box, and click on “Go>>.” Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals With disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Wayne Lundy at

(202)372-1379 or by e-mail at *Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil* as soon as possible. Dated: April 25, 2008. J. G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. E8-10239 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191; USCG-2006-24196] Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC)Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License AGENCY: United States Coast Guard; DHS. ACTION: Notice of compliance date, Captain of the Port Zones Boston, Northern New England, and Southeastern New England. SUMMARY: This Notice informs owners and operators of facilities located within Captain of the Port Zones Boston, Northern New England, and Southeastern New England that they must implement access control procedures utilizing TWIC no later than October 15, 2008. DATES: This Notice is effective May 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, are part of dockets TSA-2006-24191 and USCG-2006-24196, and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice, call LCDR Jonathan Maiorine, telephone 1-877-687-2243. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Regulatory History On May 22, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)through the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA)published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC)Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License” in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 29396). This was followed by a 45-day comment period and four public meetings. The Coast Guard and TSA issued a joint final rule, under the same title, on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3492) (hereinafter referred to as the original TWIC final rule). The preamble to that final rule contains a discussion of all the comments received on the NPRM, as well as a discussion of the provisions found in the original TWIC final rule, which became effective on March 26, 2007. In a separate section of today's **Federal Register** , the Coast Guard and TSA issued a final rule to realign the compliance date for implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. The date by which mariners need to obtain a TWIC, and by which owners and operators of vessels, facilities, and outer continental shelf facilities, who have not otherwise been required to implement access control procedures utilizing TWIC, must implement those procedures, is now April 15, 2009 instead of September 25, 2008. This realignment provides 18 months from the date the initial enrollment centers became operational for regulated entities to come into compliances with the requirements of the TWIC final rule. Owners and operators of facilities that must comply with 33 CFR part 105 will still be subject to earlier, rolling compliance dates, as laid out in 33 CFR 105.115(e). As provided in that regulation, the Coast Guard will announce those dates at least 90 days in advance via notices published in the **Federal Register** . The final compliance date will not be later than April 15, 2009. II. Notice of Facility Compliance Date—COTP Zones Boston, Northern New England, and Southeastern New England Title 33 CFR 105.115(e) currently states that “[f]acility owners and operators must be operating in accordance with the TWIC provisions in this part by the date set by the Coast Guard in a Notice to be published in the **Federal Register** .” Through this Notice, the Coast Guard informs the owners and operators of facilities subject to 33 CFR 105.115(e) located within the following Captain of the Port Zones: Boston, Northern New England, and Southeastern New England that the deadline for their compliance with Coast Guard and TSA TWIC requirements is October 15, 2008. We have determined that this date provides sufficient time for the estimated population required to obtain TWICs for these COTPs to enroll and for TSA to complete the necessary security threat assessments for those enrollment applications. We strongly encourage persons requiring unescorted access to facilities regulated by 33 CFR part 105 and located in one of these COTP Zones to enroll for their TWIC as soon as possible, if they haven't already. Information on enrollment procedures, as well as a link to the pre-enrollment web site (which will also enable an applicant to make an appointment for enrollment), may be found at *https://twicprogram.tsa.dhs.gov.* Dated: May 2, 2008. Brian M. Salerno, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship. [FR Doc. E8-10244 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1740-DR] Indiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1740-DR), dated January 30, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 30, 2008. Benton, Carroll, Cass, DeKalb, Elkhart, Jasper, Kosciusko, Marshall, Newton, Noble, Pulaski, Starke, and White Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10144 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1749-DR] Missouri; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1749-DR), dated March 19, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 28, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 19, 2008. Dade and Vernon Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10145 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-865, Extension of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-865, Sponsor's Notice of Change of Address; OMB Control Number 1615-0076. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2008, at 73 FR 10080, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov,* and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0076. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Sponsor's Notice of Change of Address.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-865. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Individuals or households. This form will be used by every sponsor who has filed an Affidavit of Support under section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to notify the USCIS of a change of address. The data will be used to locate a sponsor if there is a request for reimbursement.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 100,000 responses at .25 hours (15 minutes) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 25,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2008, at 73 FR 10798, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov,* and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0089. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Request for Fee Waiver Denial Letter.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form G-1054; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Individuals or Households. The regulations at 8 CFR 103.7(c) allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to waive fees for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act). This form is used to maintain consistency in the adjudication of fee waiver requests, to collect accurate data on amounts of fee waivers, and to facilitate the public-use process.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 16,000 responses at 1.25 hours (75 minutes) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 20,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(202)272-8377. Dated: May 1, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-10069 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: File No. OMB-4, Guidelines on Producing Master Exhibits for Asylum Applications; OMB Control No. 1615-0073. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until July 7, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail, please include the OMB Control Number 1615-0073 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Guidelines on Producing Master Exhibits for Asylum Applications.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* No Agency Form Number (File No. OMB-4); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Private Organizations and Businesses. Private voluntary organizations, law firms, or other groups submit master exhibits to USCIS to support asylum applications.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 20 responses at 80 hours per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 1,600 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: May 2, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-10079 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Notice of Immigration Pilot Program, File No. OMB-5. OMB Control No. 1615-0061. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until July 7, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, and especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by email please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0061 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Notice of Immigration Pilot Program.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* No form number. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or Households. The information collected will be used by USCIS to determine which regional centers should participate in the immigration pilot program.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 50 responses at 40 hours per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 2,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: May 2, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-10080 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-777, Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-777, Application for Issuance or Replacement of Northern Mariana Card; OMB Control No. 1615-0042. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2008, at 73 FR 10799, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov,* and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0042. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agency's should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Application for Issuance or Replacement of Northern Mariana Card.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-777. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or Households. This information collection is used by applicants applying for a Northern Mariana identification card if they received United States citizenship pursuant to Public Law 94-241 (Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 100 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 50 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2008, at 73 FR 10799, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov* , and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov* . When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0070 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Health and Human Services Statistical Data for Refugee/Asylee Adjusting Status.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-643. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Individuals or Households. The primary purpose of the information collected on this form is for use in the Office of Refugee Resettlement Report to Congress (8 U.S.C. 1523). The USCIS is required to report on the status of refugees at the time of adjustment to lawful permanent resident.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 195,000 responses at 55 minutes (.916 hours) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 178,620 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* *If additional information is required contact:* USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(202)402-7593. Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access the number above via TTY by calling the toll free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2007 awards were announced September 13, 2007. These awards were the result of competitions announced in a **Federal Register** notice published on March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11539). The purpose of the competitions was to award funding for grants and cooperative agreements for the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Grant Programs. Applications were scored and selected on the basis of selection criteria contained in these Notices. A total of $156,990,259 was awarded. In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and the amount of these awards as follows: A total of $86,640,622 was awarded to 34 grantees for the *Lead Based Paint and Hazard Control Program:* City of Tucson, 310 N. Commerce Park Loop, Tucson, AZ 85745, $3,000,000; City of Concord, 1950 Park Side Drive, Concord, CA 94521, $1,389,228; City of Bridgeport, 999 Broad Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604, $3,000,000; State of Delaware, 417 Federal Street, Dover, DE 19901, $2,996,866; City of Davenport, 226 West Fourth Street, Davenport, IA 52801, $2,273,039; City of Waterloo, 620 Mulberry Street, Waterloo, IA 50703, $1,510,597; City of Chicago, 333 S. State Street, Room 200, Chicago, IL 60604, $3,000,000; City of Kankakee, 199 S. East Avenue, Suite #1, Kankakee, IL 60901, $3,000,000; State of Illinois, 525 West Jefferson Street, Springfield, IL 62761, $3,000,000; City of Lawrence, 200 Common Street, Lawrence, MA 01840, $3,000,000; City of Worcester, 44 Front Street, Worcester, MA 01608, $2,926,802; City of Portland, 389 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04101, $1,525,172; City of Muskegon, 933 Terrace, Muskegon, MI 49440, $2,079,492; Hennepin County, 417 North 5th Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, MN 55401, $3,000,000; State of Minnesota, 625 Robert St. N., St. Paul, MN 55103-2441; $1,413,100; City of Greensboro, 300 West Washington Street, Room 315, P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136, $3,000,000; City of Rocky Mountain, 331 S. Franklin Street, Rocky Mountain, NC 27802-1180, $2,765,585; City of Nashua, 229 Main Street, P.O. Box 2019, Nashua, NH 03061-2019, $3,000,000; City of New York, 100 Gold Street, New York, NY 10038, $3,000,000; City of Syracuse, 201 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202, $3,000,000; City of Cincinnati, 801 Plum Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219, $3,000,000; City of Newark, 40 West Main Street, Suite 407, Newark, OH 43055, $1,500,000; City of Springfield, 76 East High Street, Springfield, OH 45502, $3,000,000; Cuyahoga County, 5550 Venture Drive, Parma, OH 44130, $3,000,000; Mahoning County, 21 West Boardman Street, Youngstown, OH 44503; $3,000,000; City of Erie, 626 State Street, Erie, PA 17101, $3,000,000; City of Harrisburg, 10 North 2nd Street, Suite 206, Harrisburg, PA, 17101, $2,154,490; City of Burlington, 149 Church Street, City Hall, Burlington, VT 05401, $2,865,629; Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, 149 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602, $3,000,000; City of Rochester, 30 Church Street, Rochester, NY 14614, $1,606,710; City of Dubuque, 1805 Central Avenue, Dubuque, IA 52001-3656, $2,982,769; Sheboygan County, 828 Center Avenue, Sheboygan, WI 53081, $1,880,441; City of Cambridge, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, $770,702; City of Houston, 8000 North Stadium Drive, 2nd Floor, Houston, TX 77054, $3,000,000. A total of $58,675,147 was awarded to 18 grantees for the *Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Program:* Will County, 302 N. Chicago Street, Joilet, IL 60432, $1,500,000; Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, 3838 North Rural Street, Indianapolis, IN 46205, $2,920,290; City of Baltimore, 210 Guilford Avenue, 3rd Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202, $3,897,034; Charter County of Wayne, 33030 Van Born Road, Wayne, MI 48184, $3,000,000; Hennepin County, 417 N. 5th Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, MN, 55401, $4,000,000; Kansas City, 2400 Troost Avenue, Suite 3100, Kansas City, MO 64108, $394,770; City of Omaha, 1819 Farnam Street, Omaha, NE 68183, $2,000,000; City of Newark, 920 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102, $4,000,000; County of Union, Administration Building, 10 Elizabethtown Plaza, Elizabeth, NJ, 07202-3451, $3,975,202; City of New York, 100 Gold Street, New York, NY 10038, $4,000,000; City of Syracuse, 201 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202, $4,000,000; City of Columbus, 50 W. Gay Street, 3rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, $4,000,000; City of Toledo, One Government Center, Suite 1800, Toledo, OH 43604, $3,860,036; Cuyahoga County, 5550 Venture Drive, Parma, OH 44130, $4,000,000; City of Houston, 8000 North Stadium Drive, Houston, TX 77054, $3,000,000; City of San Antonio, 1400 South Flores, San Antonio, TX 78204, $4,000,000; County of Harris, 1001 Preston, Suite 900, Houston, TX 77002, $2,127,810. In addition, due to an incorrect calculation, a grant to the City of Birmingham, 710 North 20th Street, Room 1000, Birmingham, AL 35203 for $4,000,000 will be awarded with FY 2008 funds. A total of $1,187,519 was awarded to 3 grantees for the *Lead Outreach Grants Program:* Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, 2337 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007, $400,000; Housing Counseling Services, Inc., 2410 17th Street, NW., Suite 100, Bridgeport, CT 06604, $400,000; Children's Memorial Hospital, 2300 Children's Plaza, No. 205, Chicago, IL 60614, $387,519. A total of $3,499,997 was awarded to 8 grantees for the *Lead Technical Studies Program:* Silver Lake Research Corporation, 911 South Primrose Avenue, Suite N, Monrovia, CA 91016, $471,116; Alliance for Healthy Homes, P.O. Box 75941, Washington, DC 20013, $413,354; National Center for Healthy Housing, 10320 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044, $708,977; Saint Louis University, 211 North Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, $530,606; Research Triangle Institute, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, $347,572; Battelle Memorial Institute, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201, $457,442; University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210222, 51 Goodman Drive, University Hall, Suite 530, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0222, $328,020; University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210222, 51 Goodman Drive, University Hall, Suite 530, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0222, $242,910. A total of $4,986,974 was awarded to 5 grantees for the *Healthy Homes Demonstration Grant Program:* City of San Diego, 9601 Ridgehaven Court, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92123, $999,913; Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, 2714 Hudson Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, $1,000,000; National Center for Healthy Housing, 10320 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044, $999,374; American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest, 490 Concordia, CA, St. Paul, MN 55103-2441, $999,769; The Children's Mercy Hospital, 2401 Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO 64108, $987,918. A total of $2,000,000 was awarded to 3 grantees for the *Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grants Program:* Boston Medical Center Corporation, One Boston Medical Center Place, Boston, MA 02118-2393, $855,655; Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, $359,197; University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210222, 51 Goodman Drive, University Hall, Suite 530, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0222, $785,148. Office of Healthy Homes. Dated: April 21, 2008. Jon L. Gant, Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. [FR Doc. E8-10004 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5141-N-06] Meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Notice of upcoming meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (the Committee). The meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. DATES: Meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, June 19, 2008, 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. eastern standard time. ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone

(703)243-9800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William W. Matchneer III, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Affairs and Manufactured Housing, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone

(202)708-6409 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3). The Consensus Committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured housing construction and safety standards, procedural and enforcement regulations, installation standards, installation regulations, and dispute resolution regulations. Tentative Agenda A. Welcome and Introductions; B. Full Committee Meeting; C. Quality Control; D. Installation Program Final Rule; E. Public Proposals for MHCSS Changes; F. On-Site Rule; G. Public Testimony; H. Reports and Actions on Committee Work; I. Adjourn. Dated: April 29, 2008. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E8-10008 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Low-Effect Safe Harbor Agreement for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher for Landowners Restoring, Enhancing, or Managing Riparian Habitats in Washington, Iron, Garfield, Kane, Emery, Grand, Wayne, and San Juan Counties, Utah AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of application. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Color Country Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. (Applicant) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an enhancement of survival permit (permit) for the Southwestern willow flycatcher (flycatcher) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This permit application includes a Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (Agreement) between the Applicant and the Service. The Service requests information, views, and opinions from the public via this notice. Further, the Service is soliciting information regarding the adequacy of the Programmatic Agreement as measured against the Service's Safe Harbor Policy and the regulations that implement it. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Laura Romin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. Written comments may be sent by facsimile to

(801)975-3331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Romin, Utah Field Office Assistant Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES ), telephone

(801)975-3330. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Documents You may obtain copies of the documents for review by contacting the individual named above. You also may make an appointment to view the documents at the above address during normal business hours. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Background Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements, and the subsequent permits that are issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by assuring property owners that they will not be subjected to increased land use restrictions as a result of efforts to attract or increase the numbers or distribution of a listed species on their property. Application requirements and issuance criteria for permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c). We have worked with the Applicant to develop this proposed Programmatic Agreement for the conservation of the flycatcher in Washington, Iron, Garfield, Kane, Emery, Garfield, Wayne, and San Juan Counties, Utah. Within the 25,661,861 hectares (63,411,840 acres) of land within the above-named counties, landowners will be able to enroll non-Federal properties on which habitat for flycatcher will be restored, enhanced, and managed pursuant to a written agreement between the Applicant and a property owner. We have made a preliminary determination that the Agreement qualifies as a low-effect plan. This Agreement provides for the creation of a Program in which private landowners (Program Participants) enter into written cooperative agreements with the Applicant pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, to restore, enhance, and maintain riparian habitat in ways beneficial to the flycatcher. Such cooperative agreements will be for a term of at least 15 years. The proposed duration of the Agreement and permit is 50 years. The Agreement fully describes the proposed management activities to be undertaken by Program Participants and the conservation benefits expected to be gained for the flycatcher. Upon approval of this Agreement, and consistent with the Service's Safe Harbor Policy published in the **Federal Register** on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32717), the Service would issue a permit to the applicant authorizing take of flycatcher by Program Participants incidental to the implementation of the management activities specified in the cooperative agreements, incidental to other lawful uses of the properties, including normal routine land management activities, and/or to return to pre-Agreement conditions. To benefit the flycatcher, Program Participants will agree to undertake site-specific management activities, which will be specified in their written cooperative agreements. Management activities that could be included in the Cooperative Agreements will provide for the restoration, enhancement and management of native riparian habitats in the range of the flycatcher in Utah. The object of such activities is to enhance populations of flycatchers by increasing the amount and quality of suitable habitat on the enrolled properties. Take of flycatchers incidental to the aforementioned activities is unlikely; however, it is possible that in the course of such activities or other lawful activities on the enrolled property, a Program Participant could incidentally take flycatcher thereby necessitating take authority under the permit. Pre-Agreement conditions (baseline), consisting of survey for flycatchers and documentation on the extent of habitat shall be determined for each enrolled property as provided in the Agreement. In order to receive the above assurances regarding incidental take of flycatchers, a Program Participant must maintain baseline on the enrolled property. The Agreement and requested permit would allow each Program Participant to return to baseline conditions after the end of the term of the cooperative agreement (minimum of 15 years) and prior to the expiration of the 50-year permit, if so desired by the Applicants. Public Review and Comments The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed Agreement and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). We explain the basis for this determination in an Environmental Action Statement, which also is available for public review. Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, copies of our draft Environmental Action Statement, and/or copies of the Agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area and references, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section above. If you wish to comment on the permit application or the Agreement, you may submit your comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments and materials received, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address in the ADDRESSES section above and will become part of the public record, pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, are available for public inspection in their entirety. We will evaluate this permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act and NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the proposed Agreement and issue a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to the Applicants for take of the flycatcher incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period. The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6). Dated: March 6, 2008. Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, Utah. [FR Doc. E8-10055 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Receipt of 41 Applications for Incidental Take Permits for Single Family and Duplex Residential Developments on the Fort Morgan Peninsula, Baldwin County, AL AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The applicants (Ms. Shirley Baird, Mr. Edward Boykin, Mr. Richard Dorsey, Mr. Richard Eastman, Mr. Terry Elkins, Mr. Medford Foster, Mr. Ted Giles, Mr. John Griffin, Harrison Building, Mr. Kenneth Howald, Mr. Gary Hudson, Mr. Jerry Hutcherson, Mr. Dean Jones, Mr. Bobby Junkins, K-Developers LLC, Mr. James Keeling, Mr. James Klimback, Mr. Marshall Newport, Ms. Mary Powers, Mr. Bradley Redwine, Mr. Edwin Spence, Mr. Jackie Stokley, Mr. Olin Tumlin, and Mr. James Walker) have applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for incidental take permits

(ITP)under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S. C. 1531 *et seq.* ) (Act), as amended for the take of Alabama beach mouse ( *Peromyscus polionotus ammobates* ) (ABM). The proposed take would be incidental to the otherwise lawful activity of constructing 37 single-family and 5 duplex residences on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama. The applicants have prepared Habitat Conservation Plans

(HCPs)in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, specifying, among other things, the impacts that are likely to result from the taking and the measures each applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts. A detailed description of the proposed minimization and mitigation measures is provided in the applicants' HCPs and in our Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed action would involve approval of the HCPs if the statutory issuance criteria are satisfied. The EA considers the environmental impacts of the proposed projects on the environment. DATES: Written comments on the ITP applications, HCPs, and EA should be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ) and should be received on or before June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the applications, HCPs, and EA may obtain an electronic copy on compact disk by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia, at the address below. Documents will also be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Service's Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or the Daphne Ecological Services Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, Alabama 36526. Written data or comments concerning the applications or HCPs should be submitted to the Regional Office. Please reference Batch IV ITPs for 41 applications in requests for the documents discussed herein. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Aaron Valenta, Regional HCP Coordinator (see ADDRESSES ), telephone: 404-679-4144, or Mr. Darren LeBlanc, Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist, Daphne Field Office (see ADDRESSES ), telephone: 251-441-5859. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We announce applications for 41 ITPs, including the HCPs, and the availability of an EA. The EA is a combined assessment addressing the environmental impacts associated with these projects both individually and cumulatively. Copies of these documents may be obtained by making a request, in writing, to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). This notice advises the public that we have opened the comment period on the ITP applications, the HCPs, and the EA. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10 of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on the Federal action, including the identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in our EA. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCPs as measured against our ITP issuance criteria found in 50 CFR parts 13.21 and 17.22. If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference Batch IV ITPs for 41 applications for residential development in such comments. You may mail comments to our Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ). You may also comment via the Internet to *aaron_valenta@fws.gov* . Please include your name and return mailing address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from us that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at either telephone number listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to either Service office listed (see ADDRESSES ). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. The ITPs would cover 41 discrete lots totaling 23.2 acres on the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Under the preferred alternative, project development would result in the overall loss of 4.25 acres of ABM habitat. Minimization and mitigation of impacts includes: reduced project impacts, maintenance of ABM habitat on-site, prohibition of cats, preservation of dune habitat, and elimination of debris. We will evaluate the HCPs, applications, and any received comments to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If it is determined that those requirements are met, the ITPs will be issued for the incidental take of the ABM. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITPs comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITPs. Dated: April 30, 2008. Noreen E. Walsh, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-10052 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Acquisitions; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Final Agency Determination To Take Land into Trust under 25 CFR Part 151. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire approximately 254 acres of land into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria of California on April 18, 2008. This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, MS-3657 MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone

(202)219-4066. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published to comply with the requirement of 25 CFR Part 151.12(b) that notice be given to the public of the Secretary's decision to acquire land in trust at least 30 days prior to signatory acceptance of the land into trust. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in 25 CFR 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the opportunity to seek judicial review of final administrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians before transfer of title to the property occurs. On April 18, 2008, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs decided to accept approximately 254 acres of land into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria of California. The Graton Rancheria was restored to federal recognition pursuant to Title XIV of Public Law 106-568 (the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act), 25 U.S.C. 1300n-3, which mandates that, “the Secretary shall accept into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or Sonoma County...”. The 254 acre parcel is located in Sonoma County, California. The legal description of the property is as follows: Tract One Farms 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 124, 125, 126 and 127, as shown upon the Map of Plan of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, filed March 7, 1910 in the Office of the County Recorder of Sonoma County in Book 21 of Maps, Page 14, Sonoma County Records. Certificate of Compliance recorded January 28, 1998 as Document No.'s 1998 0008588 through 1998 0008596, Sonoma County Records. Being Assessors Parcel No. 045-073-001 Tract Two Parcel One Farms 130 and 131 as shown upon the Map of Plan of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2 filed March 7, 1910 in the Office of the County Recorder of Sonoma County in Book 21 of Maps, Page 14, Sonoma County Records. Certificate of Compliance recorded January 28, 1998 as Document No.'s 1998 0008597 and 1998 0008598, Sonoma County Records. Being a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 045-074-009. Parcel Two Farm 129 of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, according to Map thereof filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said County on March 7, 1910 in Book 21 Maps, Page 14, Sonoma County Records. Being Assessor's Parcel No. 045-074-010. Parcel Three Farm No. 128 as same is shown upon that certain Map Entitled “Plan of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, Sonoma Co., Cal., Etc.”, filed March 7, 1910 in Book 21 of Maps at Page 14. *Saving and Excepting Therefrom, the following:* Commencing at the Southeasterly corner of said Farm No. 128; thence Northerly along the Eastern line thereon, 155 feet and 7 inches to a point, for the actual point of commencement of the tract to be herein described; thence from said point of commencement, South 89° West, 289 feet and 6 inches to a point; thence Northerly, parallel with the Eastern line of said Farm No. 128, a distance of 155 feet and 10 inches to a point; thence North 89° East, 289 feet and 6 inches to the Eastern line of said Farm No. 128; thence Southerly along said Eastern line, 155 feet and 10 inches to the point of commencement. *Also Saving and Excepting Therefrom, the following:* Beginning at a point on the center line of Labath Avenue, which point is the Southeast corner of Lot 128 as shown upon the Map entitled “Plan Of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, Sonoma Co., Cal., Etc.”, filed March 7, 1910 in Book 21 of Maps, Page 14, Sonoma County Records; thence North 1° West along the Easterly line of Lot 128, a distance of 155 feet, 7 inches to a point; thence South 89° West, 289.5 feet; thence North 1° West, 77 feet, 10 inches; thence South 89° West, 283.66 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 128; thence along said line, South 1° East, 233.5 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 128; thence along the Southerly line of said Lot, North 89° East, 573.16 feet to the point of beginning. Being Assessor's Parcel No. 045-073-002. Tract Three A Portion of Farm No. 128 as shown upon the Map entitled “Plan of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, Sonoma County, California”, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Sonoma County, California, on March 7, 1910 in Book 21 of Maps, page 14, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeasterly corner of said Farm No. 128; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof, 155 feet, 7 inches to a point for the true point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence South 89° West 289 feet, 6 inches to a point; thence Northerly parallel with the Easterly line of said Farm No. 128, a distance of 155 feet, 10 inches to a point; thence North 89° East, 289 feet, 6 inches to the Easterly line of said Farm No. 128; thence Southerly along said Easterly line, 155 feet, 10 inches to the point of beginning. Being Assessor's Parcel No. 045-073-003. Tract Four Beginning at a point on the center line of Labath Avenue which point is the Southeast corner Lot 128 as shown upon the Map entitled Plan of Subdivision of Santa Rosa Farms No. 2, Sonoma County, California, etc., filed March 7, 1910 in Book 21 of Maps, page 14, Sonoma County Records; thence North 1° West along the Easterly line of Lot 128, a distance of 155 feet 7 inches to a point; thence South 89° West, 289.5 feet; thence North 1° West, 77 feet 10 inches; thence 89° West, 283.66 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 128; thence along said line South 1° East, 233.5 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 128; thence along the Southerly line of said Lot, North 89° East, 573.16 feet to the point of beginning. Being Assessor's Parcel No. 045-073-004. Tract Five A tract of land, being a portion of the Rancho Llano de Santa Rosa, and commencing on the boundary line of said Rancho on the line between Section 21 and 22, in Township 6 North, Range 8 West, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, at a point in the center of the County Road known as the Santa Rosa and Stony Point Road, from which point the post for the railing of the bridge, across the Laguna and standing on the Southeast corner of the same, is North 31° West, 13 links distant; thence from said point of beginning, North 89° 30′ East, 11.92 chains, South 39° 05′ East, 2.61 chains, South 53° East, 1.36 chains, South 64° East, 1.23 chains, South 77° 15′ East, 2.62 chains, South 88° 05′ East, 3.94 chains, North 4° 15′ East, 1.43 chains, South 88° East, 2.03 chains, South 56° East, 2.44 chains, North 87° 15′ East, 22.62 chains to the Northwest boundary line of the Cotati Rancho; thence along said line, North 29° 15′ East, 39.44 chains; thence leaving said line, West 67.92 chains to the center of the aforesaid Road and Section line; thence South, 32.18 chains to the point of beginning. Magnetic Variation 17° East. Excepting therefrom those portions of land described in the Deeds from Manuel T. Pimentel, *et al* , to the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, recorded August 16, 1961 in Book 1840 of Official Records, page 280, Serial No. G-60050, Sonoma County Records, and recorded September 24, 1963 in Book 1989 of Official Records, page 575, Serial No. H-56600, Sonoma County Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of land described in the Deed from Mary C. Pimentel, *et al* , to the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, recorded February 11, 1966 in Book 2187 of Official Records, page 957, Serial No. J-83549, Sonoma County Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of land described in the Deed to the City of Rohnert Park, recorded January 11, 1989, as Document No. 89002750 of Official Records of Sonoma County. Also excepting therefrom that portion of land described in the Deed to the County of Sonoma, recorded May 17, 1996 as Document No. 1996 0044116 of Official Records of Sonoma County. An easement for cattle and agricultural equipment crossing, as described in the Deed from the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Manuel L. Pimentel and Mary C. Pimentel, recorded August 15, 1961 in Book 1840 of Official Records, page 284, Serial No. G-60051, Sonoma County Records. An easement for cattle and agricultural equipment crossing, as described in the Deed from the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Manuel L. Pimentel and Mary C. Pimentel, recorded August 15, 1961 in Book 1840 of Official Records, page 288, Serial No. G-60052, Sonoma County Records. Being Assessor's Parcel Nos. 046-021-020 & 021,046-021-039 & 040. Tract Six All that certain real property situated in the City of Rohnert Park, County of Sonoma, State of California, described as follows: Lot 6, as shown on the map of “Rohnert Business Park Subdivision”, filed August 12, 1985 in the office of the County Recorder in Book 375 of Maps, at pages 10 and 11, Sonoma County Records. Being Assessor's Parcel No. 143-040-068. Dated: April 18, 2008. Carl J. Artman, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-10064 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [UT-060-08-1430-EQ; UTU-81536] Notice of Realty Action; Re-Issuance; Noncompetitive Lease of Public Land; Grand County, Utah AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Realty Action; Re-issuance. SUMMARY: This notice announces the re-issuance of the Notice of Realty Action published in the **Federal Register** on March 14, 2006 and cancelled by notice published on July 21, 2006. DATES: Interested parties may submit comments to the BLM Acting Moab Field Manager, at the address below. Comments must be received by not later than June 23, 2008. Only written comments will be accepted. ADDRESSES: Address all written comments concerning this notice to the BLM Acting Moab Field Manager, 82 East Dogwood Avenue, Moab, Utah 84532. Please send e-mail comments to the following address: *momail@ut.blm.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary von Koch, Realty Specialist, Moab Field Office, 435-259-2128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision to cancel the Notice of Realty Action was based on the comments received during the 45-day comment period. Since July of 2006, all the impediments that led to the cancellation of the Notice of Realty Action have been removed. BLM has determined that the following 2,808.67 acres of isolated public lands in Grand County, Utah, are suitable for lease pursuant to Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (90 Stat. 2762; 43 U.S.C. 1732) using noncompetitive (direct) lease procedures. Salt Lake Meridian T. 20 S., R. 16 E., Sec. 25, S 1/2 ; Sec. 26, SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , E 1/2 SW 1/4 , and SE 1/4 ; Sec. 27, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 28, E 1/2 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 34, W 1/2 NW 1/4 . T. 21 S., R. 16 E., Sec. 1, lots 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 16. T. 21 S., R. 17 E., Sec. 4, lots 11, 12, 13, 14, N 1/2 SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , and NW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 5, E 1/2 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 6, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10; Sec. 7, lot 4, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , and SE 1/4 ; Sec. 8, NW 1/4 SW 1/4 , SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , and SE 1/4 ; Sec. 9, N 1/2 N 1/2 , S 1/2 NE 1/4 , SW 1/4 NW 1/4 , and S 1/2 Green River Farms, a domestic corporation, has proposed to file with BLM an application to lease the above public lands, located near Green River, Utah. The lands would be used, occupied and developed as a commercial agricultural farm in conjunction with adjoining private lands owned by Green River Farms and lands leased to Green River Farms by the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. After review, the BLM has determined that the proposed use of the above described parcels is in conformance with the Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan, and that the above described land is available for that use. Therefore, pursuant to section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)) and the implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2920, the BLM will accept for processing an application to be filed by Green River Farms, or its duly qualified designee, for a non-competitive lease of the above described lands, to be used, occupied, and developed as stated above. A non-competitive lease may be employed in this case because all of the subject tracts of public land are adjacent to lands of the same proposed farming project. A detailed description of the negotiated, non-competitive process was provided in the original notice. On or before June 23, 2008, interested parties may submit comments to the BLM at the address stated above with respect to:

(1)The decision of the BLM regarding the availability of the lands described herein and

(2)The decision of the BLM to accept for processing an application from Green River Farms for a non-competitive lease. Facsimiles, telephone calls, and electronic mails are unacceptable means of notification. Comments including names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the BLM Moab Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Utah State Director, who may sustain, vacate or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections, or adverse comments, the proposed realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. Authority: 43 CFR 2920.4. Dated: April 30, 2008. Selma Sierra, State Director. [FR Doc. E8-10051 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-565 Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding] In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued at the conclusion of the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Haldenstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-3041. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov/.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on March 23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Epson Portland, Inc. of Oregon; Epson America, Inc. of California; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan (collectively “Epson”). 71 FR 14720 (March 23, 2006). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“section 337”) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 164 and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 31, 34 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,488,401; claims 1-3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 1, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53 and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants requested that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The Commission named as respondents 24 companies located in China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Several respondents were terminated from the investigation on the basis of settlement agreements or consent orders or were found in default. On March 30, 2007, the presiding ALJ (Judge Luckern) issued a final ID in the investigation finding a violation of section 337 with respect to certain respondents. He found the asserted claims valid and infringement by certain respondents' products. He recommended issuance of a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to certain respondents and bond in the amount of $13.60 per cartridge during the Presidential review period. On October, 19, 2007, after review, the Commission made its final determination in the investigation, finding a violation of section 337. The Commission issued a general exclusion order, limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders directed to several domestic respondents. The Commission also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and

(g)did not preclude issuance of the aforementioned remedial orders, and that the bond during the Presidential review period would be $13.60 per cartridge for covered ink cartridges. On February 8, 2008, complainant Epson filed two complaints seeking enforcement proceedings under Commission Rule 210.75. One complaint alleges that Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.; and Town Sky Inc. have violated the general exclusion order and that Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. and Town Sky Inc. have violated the cease and desist orders directed to them. Epson's second complaint alleges that Mipo International Ltd. and Mipo America, Ltd. have violated the general and limited exclusion orders and that Mipo America, Ltd. has violated the cease and desist order directed to it. Having examined the complaints seeking a formal enforcement proceeding, and having found that the complaints comply with the requirements for institution of a formal enforcement proceeding contained in Commission rule 210.75, the Commission has determined to institute a consolidated formal enforcement proceeding to determine whether the five respondents are in violation of the Commission's exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. The following entities are named as parties to the formal enforcement proceeding:

(1)Complainant Epson,

(2)respondents (Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.; Town Sky Inc.; Mipo America Ltd., and Mipo International, Ltd.) and

(3)a Commission investigative attorney to be designated by the Director, Office of Unfair Import Investigations. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.75 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.75). Issued: May 1, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-9984 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [OMB Number 1117-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities ACTION: 30-day notice of information collection under review. Proposed collection; comments requested: U.S. Official Order Forms for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances (Accountable Forms), Order Form Requisition—DEA Form 222 and 222a The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 73, Number 42, page 11443 on March 3, 2008, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* U.S. Official Order Forms for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances (Accountable Forms), Order Form Requisition (DEA Form 222 and 222a).

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* *Form number:* DEA Form 222 and 222a. *Component:* Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Business or other for-profit. *Other:* Not-for-profit, State, local or tribal government. *Abstract:* DEA-222 is used to transfer or purchase Schedule I and II controlled substances and data are needed to provide an audit of transfer and purchase. DEA-222a Requisition Form is used to obtain the DEA-222 Order Form. Persons may also digitally sign and transmit orders for controlled substances electronically, using a digital certificate. Orders for Schedule I and II controlled substances are archived and transmitted to DEA.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* DEA estimates that 96,280 registrants submit forms annually for this collection, taking an estimated 13.34 hours annually.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* DEA estimates that there will be 1,283,935 annual burden hours associated with the collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: May 2, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-10082 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [OMB Number 1117-0021] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-day notice of information collection under review: Records and Reports of Registrants. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA)will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 73, Number 42, pages 11443-11444 on March 3, 2008, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until June 6, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Records and Reports of Registrants.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* *Form Number:* None. Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Business or other for-profit. *Other:* Not-for-profit institutions, federal government, state, local or tribal government. *Abstract:* This information is needed to maintain a closed system of distribution by requiring the individual practitioner to keep records of the dispensing and administration of controlled substances.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* DEA estimates that 103,000 respondents, with 103,000 responses annually to this collection. DEA estimates that it takes 30 minutes per year for each practitioner to maintain the necessary records.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* This information collection creates an annual burden of 51,500 hours. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: May 2, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-10084 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board Meeting *Time and Date:* 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2008. 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2008. *Place:* National Institute of Corrections, 500 First Street NW., 7th fl, Washington, DC 20534, Phone

(202)307-3106. *Status:* Open. *Matters To Be Considered:* NIC executive Director's report; FY 09 Program Plan; Chairman McFarland will discuss the hearings of the PREA Review Panel; Review PREA Commission draft standards with Richard Hoffman, executive Director, PREA Commission; Reports from Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Parole Commission, American Correctional Association and Federal Judicial center. *Contact Person for More Information:* Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director, 202-307-3106, ext. 44254. Morris L. Thigpen, Director. [FR Doc. E8-9986 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-36-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request May 1, 2008. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Website at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title:* Report on Current Employment Statistics. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0011. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, and Tribal Governments; and Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 264,700. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 529,940. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The Current Employment Statistics program provides current monthly statistics on employment, hours, and earnings, by industry. The statistics are fundamental inputs in economic decision processes at all levels of government, private enterprise, and organized labor. For additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 7608 on February 8, 2008. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title:* Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0012. *Affected Public:* State, Local, and Tribal Governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 1,042,080. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* QCEW data, which are provided to BLS by State Workforce Agencies, are used by BLS as a sampling frame for its establishment surveys; for publishing of accurate current estimates of employment for the U.S., States, and metropolitan areas; and publishing quarterly census totals of local establishment counts, employment, and wages. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses the data to produce accurate personal income data for the U.S., States, and local areas. Finally, the data is critical to the Employment Training Administration to administer unemployment insurance programs. For additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 6215 on February 2, 2008. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title:* Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0039. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local, or Tribal Governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53,600. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 123,850. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The Consumer Price Index

(CPI)is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services. Each month, BLS data collectors called economic assistants, visit or call thousands of retail stores, service establishments, rental units, and doctors' offices, all over the United States to obtain information on the prices of the thousands of items used to track and measure price changes in the CPI. The collection of price data is essential for the timely and accurate calculation of the commodities and services component of the CPI. The CPI is then widely used as a measure of inflation, indicator of the effectiveness of government economic policy, deflator for other economic series, and as a means of adjusting dollar values. For additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 3755 on January 22, 2008. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10038 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,718] Fraser Timber Limited, Ashland, ME, Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated April 10, 2008, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on March 14, 2008. The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 16064). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of lumber and woodchips did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding aggregate imports of lumber and the impact of Canadian imports on lumber industry in the United States. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10031 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,947] Norcal Pottery Products, Macrame Department, Richmond Distribution Center, Richmond, California; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By applications dated April 15, 2008, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on March 21, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22169). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that criteria I.A and II.A have not been met. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding employment and layoffs at the subject firm. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10035 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,920] Lanxess Sybron Chemicals, Inc., a Subsidiary of Lanxess Corporation, Including On-Site Contract Workers from Aerotek, Birmingham, NJ; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on March 18, 2008, applicable to workers of Lanxess Sybron Chemicals, Inc., a subsidiary of Lanxess Corporation, Birmingham, New Jersey. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22169). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of ion exchange resins for a variety of industrial applications. New information shows that employees of AeroTek were working on-site at the Birmingham, New Jersey location of Lanxess Sybron Chemicals, Inc., a subsidiary of Lanxess Corporation. The Department has determined that the AeroTek workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered contract/leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include temporary workers of AeroTek working on-site at the Birmingham, New Jersey location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Lanxess Sybron Chemicals, Inc., a subsidiary of Lanxess Corporation, Birmingham, New Jersey who were adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,920 is hereby issued as follows: ”All workers of Lanxess Sybron Chemicals, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Lanxess Corporation, including on-site contract workers from AeroTek, Birmingham, New Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 27, 2007, through March 18, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.” Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of April 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10033 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,629; TA-W-62,629A] Giant Merchandising, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Priority Temporary Services, Partners In Diversity and Apple One Commerce, CA; Including An Employee in Support of Giant Merchandising, Inc., Commerce, CA Operating Out of Rochester, MN; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 28, 2008, applicable to workers of Giant Merchandising, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Priority Temporary Services, Partners In Diversity and Apple One, Commerce, California. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 13, 2008 (73 FR 8369). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that a worker separation (Mr. Halton Hamer) has occurred involving an employee in support of and under the control of the Commerce, California facility of Giant Merchandising, Inc. operating out of Rochester, Minnesota. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee in support of the Commerce, California facility operating out of Rochester, Minnesota. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Giant Merchandising, Inc., Commerce, California who were adversely affected by a shift in production of screen printed apparel to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,629 is hereby issued as follows: “All workers of Giant Merchandising, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Priority Temporary Services, Partners In Diversity, and Apple One, Commerce, California (TA-W-62,629), including an employee in support of Giant Merchandising, Inc., Commerce, California operating out of Rochester, Minnesota (TA-W-62,629A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 10, 2006, through January 28, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.” Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10029 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,659] Richloom Home Fashions, Division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton, SC; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On March 27, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22166). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 for the Trade Act of 1974. In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated that workers of the Sample Department of the subject firm produce samples of window treatments and bed coverings and requested that the Department conduct further investigation of the Sample Department. On reconsideration, the Department contacted a company official and requested additional information regarding the production of samples of window treatments and bed coverings. The investigation revealed that workers of the Sample Department, Richloom Home Fashions in Clinton, South Carolina manufacture samples of window treatments and bed coverings. However, the investigation also revealed that only one worker was separated from the Sample Department in 2007 and there was no threat of future separations. The subject company did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers, as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five percent of the workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least 50 workers. As employment levels at the subject facility did not decline during the relevant time period and there was no threat of separations during the relevant period, criterion

(1)has not been met. Conclusion After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Richloom Home Fashions, division of Richloom Fabrics Corporation, Clinton, South Carolina. Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of April, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10030 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,927] Chase Home Finance LLC, A Division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Lexington, Kentucky; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated April 17, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on March 17, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22170). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Chase Home Finance LLC, a Division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Lexington, Kentucky was based on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The petitioner states that employment at the subject firm was negatively impacted by a shift of job functions to the Philippines. The petitioner also states that regardless of whether the workers of the subject firm produce a product or provide services, they should be certified eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. The investigation revealed that the workers of Chase Home Finance LLC, a Division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Lexington, Kentucky provide loan services for home mortgages and home equity lines of credit. These functions, as described above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm produced an article. Since the investigation determined that workers of Chase Home Finance LLC, a Division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Lexington, Kentucky do not produce an article, there cannot be imports nor a shift in production of an “article” abroad within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974 in this instance. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either

(1)a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or

(2)a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10034 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,771] Parlex U.S.A., Laminated Cable Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Technical Needs, Marathon, Atwork Personnel Methuen, MA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On April 1, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19896). The previous investigation was initiated on January 30, 2008, resulted in a negative determination issued on February 14, 2008, was based on the finding that, during the relevant period, the number of workers separated from the subject did not constitute a significant number or proportion of the subject worker group (at least 5 percent) and there was no threat of future separations. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11153). To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information regarding employment at the subject firm and indicated that at the time the petition was filed, there was a threat of worker separations at the subject firm. Upon further contact with the subject firm's company official, it was revealed that the subject firm separated a significant number of workers during March 2008 and there is a threat of future separations. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm was in the process of shifting production of laminated cable to China. It is likely that the company will increase imports of laminated cable. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production from the workers' firm or subdivision to China of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision, and there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Parlex U.S.A., Laminated Cable Division, including on-site leased workers of Technical Needs, Marathon, Atwork Personnel, Methuen, Massachusetts, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 29, 2007, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 28th day of April 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10032 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,222] Brockway Mould, Inc., Brockport, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 21, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Brockway Mould, Inc., Brockport, Pennsylvania. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-10028 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 08-05] Notice of Quarterly Report (January 1, 2008-March 31, 2008) AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation. SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge Corporation

(MCC)is reporting for the quarter January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 with respect to both assistance provided under Section 605 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-199, Division D (the Act)), and transfers or allocations of funds to other federal agencies pursuant to Section 619(b) of the Act. The following report shall be made available to the public by means of publication in the **Federal Register** and on the Internet Web site of the MCC ( *http://www.mcc.gov* ) in accordance with Section 612(b) of the Act. Assistance Provided Under Section 605 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Madagascar Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $109,773,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Madagascar Total quarterly disbursement: $6,378,369 Land Tenure Project $37,802,712 Increase Land Titling and Security $9,489,400 Legislative proposal reflecting the National Land Tenure Program submitted to Parliament and passed. Number of land disputes reported and resolved in the target zones and sites of implementation. Percentage of land documents inventoried, restored, and/or digitized. Average time and cost required to carry out property transactions. Percent of reported land conflicts resolved on titled land in zone 3, 4, 5 during the title regularization operations. Percentage of land in the zones that is demarcated and ready for titling. Finance Project 35,688,288 Increase Competition in the Financial Sector 4,456,685 The number of savings accounts and outstanding value of accounts from primary banks. Maximum check clearing delay. Volume of funds in payment system and number of transactions. Increased public awareness of new financial instruments as measured by surveys within intervention zones and large towns. The amount of government debt issued with maturities in excess of 52 weeks. The number of new individual investors buying government debt securities. The number of bank branches of the Central Bank of Madagascar capable of accepting auction tenders. Percentage of all loans included in the central database. Agricultural Business Investment Project 17,683,000 Improve Agricultural Projection Technologies and Market Capacity in Rural Areas 7,217,240 Number of rural producers receiving or soliciting information from Agricultural Business Centers about the opportunities. Intervention zones identified and description of beneficiaries within each zone submitted. Number of visitors receiving information from National Coordinating Center with respect to business opportunities. Change in farm income due to improved production and marketing practices. Change in enterprise income due to improved production and marketing practices. Number of farmers and businesses employing technical assistance received. Program Administration* and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 18,399,000 8,544,664 Pending subsequent reports** −599,355 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Honduras Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $215,000,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Honduras Total quarterly disbursement: $4,111,178 Rural Development Project $70,687,000 Increase the productivity and business skills of farmers who operate small- and medium-size farms and their employees $13,888,166 Increase in farm income resulting from Rural Development Project. Funds lent by MCA-Honduras to financial institutions. Increase in employment income resulting from Rural Development Project. Number of Program farmers harvesting high-value horticulture crops. Number of hectares harvesting high-value horticulture crops. Transportation Project 127,208,000 Reduce transportation costs between targeted production centers and national, regional and global markets 2,978,662 Freight shipment cost from Tegucigalpa to Puerto Cortes. Price of basic food basket. Number of days per year road is passable. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 17,105,000 2,961,084 Pending subsequent reports** −791,608 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Cape Verde Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $110,078,488 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Cape Verde Total quarterly disbursement: $3,657,327 Watershed and Agricultural Support $10,848,630 Increase agricultural production in three targeted watershed areas on three islands $2,042,500 Increase in horticultural productivity. Increase in annual income. Value-added for farms and agribusiness. Infrastructure Improvement 78,760,208 Increase integration of the internal market and reduce transportation costs 8,252,439 Volume of goods shipped between Praia and other islands. Mobility Ratio: Percentage of beneficiary population who take at least 5 trips per month. Savings on transport costs from improvements. Private Sector Development 7,200,000 Spur private sector development on all islands through increased investment in the priority sectors and through financial sector reform 113,890 Value added in priority sectors above current trends. Volume of private investment in priority sectors above current trends. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 13,269,650 4,428,462 Pending subsequent reports ** 2,206,857 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Nicaragua Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $175,000,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Nicaragua Total Quarterly Disbursement: $ 5,476,511 Property Regularization Project $26,400,000 Increase Investment by strengthening property rights $2,927,021 Value of investment on land. Value of urban land. Value of rural land. Number of days to conduct a land transaction. Total cost to conduct a land transaction. Transportation Project 92,800,000 Reduce transportation costs between Leon and Chinandega and national, regional and global markets 5,747,905 Price of a basket of goods. Travel Time. Rural Business Development Project 33,500,000 Increase the value added of farms and enterprises in the region 8,258,440 Annual percentage increase in value-added of clients of business office. Number of jobs created. Number of program farm plots harvesting higher-value crops or reforesting under improvement of Water Supply Activities. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 22,300,000 6,629,264 Pending subsequent reports ** −3,731,791 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Georgia Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $295,300,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Georgia Total quarterly disbursement: $7,227,528 Regional Infrastructure Rehabilitation $211,700,000 Key Regional Infrastructure Rehabilitated $19,756,033 Reduction in Akhalkalaki-Ninotsminda-Teleti journey time. Reduction in vehicle operating costs. Increase in internal regional traffic volumes. Decreased technical losses in gas through the main North-South pipeline Reduction in the production of greenhouse gas emissions measured in tons of CO2 equivalent. Increased collection rate of the Georgian Gas Company (GOGC). Number of household beneficiaries served by Regional Infrastructure Development projects. Actual operations and maintenance expenditures. Regional Enterprise Development 47,500,000 Enterprises in Regions Developed 6,185,514 Increase in annual revenue in portfolio companies. Increase in number of portfolio company employees and number of local suppliers. Increase in portfolio companies' wages and payments to local suppliers. Jobs created. Increase in aggregate incremental net revenue to project assisted firms. Direct household net income. Direct household net income for market information initiative beneficiaries. Number of beneficiaries. Program Administration *, Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 36,100,000 8,552,935 Pending subsequent reports ** $11,389,101 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Vanuatu Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $65,690,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Vanuatu Total quarterly disbursement: $0 Transportation Infrastructure Project $60,615,232 Facilitate transportation to increase tourism and business development $152,297 Number of Tourists. Number of days per year road is closed. Number of S-W Bay, Malekula flights cancelled per year due to flooding. Vessel wait time at wharf. Program Administration, * Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 5,074,768 1,786,418 Pending subsequent reports ** 67,893 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Armenia Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $235,650,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Armenia Total quarterly disbursement: $3,963,775 Irrigated Agriculture Project (Agriculture and Water) $145,680,000 Increase agricultural productivity. Improve Quality of Irrigation $7,414,586 Increase in hectares covered by high value added horticultural and fruit crops. Percentage of respondents satisfied with irrigation services. Share of Water User Association water charges as percentage of Water User Association annual operations and maintenance costs. Number of farmers using improved on-farm water management practices. Annual increase in irrigated land in Project area. State budget expenditures on maintenance of irrigation system. Value of loans provided under the project. Rural Road Rehabilitation Project 67,100,000 Better access to economic and social infrastructure 2,453,964 Government budgetary allocations for routine maintenance of the entire road network. Average daily traffic in Project area. Kilometers of Package 1 road sections rehabilitated. Kilometers of Package 2 road sections rehabilitated. Kilometers of Package 3 road sections rehabilitated. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 22,870,000 5,562,777 Pending subsequent reports ** −207,073 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Benin Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $307,298,040 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Benin Total quarterly disbursement: $6,911,600 Access to Financial Services $19,650,000 Expand Access to Financial Services $2,375,946 Operational self-sufficiency of participating microfinance institutions. Number of microfinance institutions supervised by the microfinance cellule. Total incremental increase in value of new credit extended and savings received by financial institutions participating in the project. Share value of all loans outstanding that have one or more installments of principal over 30 days past due. Total number of loans guaranteed by land titles per year. Access to Justice 34,270,000 Improved Ability of Justice System to Enforce Contracts and Reconcile Claims 1,297,304 Number of cases processed at the arbitration center. Percentage of all cases in the “Tribunal de Premiere Instance” courts per year. Percentage of all cases resolved in court of appeals per year. Average distance to reach TPI. Number of enterprises registered through the registration center. Average number of days required to register an enterprise. Access to Land 36,020,000 Strengthen property rights and increase investment in rural and urban land 8,277,185 Total value of additional investments in target rural land parcels. Total value of additional investments in target urban land parcels. Access to Markets 169,447,000 Improve Access to Markets through Improvements to the Port of Cotonou 5,070,264 Total metric tons of exports and imports passing through Port of Cotonou per year. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 47,911,040 11,569,831 Pending subsequent reports ** −4,206,496 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Ghana Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $547,009,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Ghana Total quarterly disbursement: $2,066,682 Agriculture Project $240,984,050 Enhance profitability of cultivation, services to agriculture and product handling in support of the expansion of commercial agriculture among groups of smallholder farms $5,399,639 Number of hectares irrigated. Number of days to conduct a land transaction. Number of land disputes in the pilot registration districts. Registration of land rights in the pilot registration districts. Metric tons of products passing through post-harvest treatment. Portfolio-at-risk of agriculture loan fund. Value of loans disbursed to clients from agricultural loan fund. Number of additional loans. Vehicle operating costs on minor, medium and major rehabilitated roads. Rural Development 101,288,000 Strengthen the rural institutions that provide services complementary to, and supportive of, agricultural and agriculture business development 482,804 Time/quality per procurement. Score card of citizen satisfaction with services. Gross enrollment rates. Gender parity in school enrollment. Distance to collect water. Time to collect water. Distance to sanitation facility. Travel time to sanitation facility. Incidence of guinea worm, diarrhea or bilharzias. Average number of days lost due to guinea worm, diarrhea or bilharzias. Percentage of households, schools, and agricultural processing plants in target districts with electricity. Number of inter-bank transactions. Value of deposit accounts in rural banks. Transportation 141,104,000 Reduce the transportation costs affecting agriculture commerce at sub-regional levels 87,040 Volume capacity ratio. Vehicles per hour at peak hour. Travel time at peak hour. International roughness index. Annual average daily vehicle and passenger traffic. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation 61,632,950 7,660,087 Pending subsequent reports ** 1,877,851 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: El Salvador Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $460,939,996 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA El Salvador Total quarterly disbursement: $847,312 Human Development Project $91,674,603 Increase human and physical capital of residents of the Northern Zone to take advantage of employment and business opportunities $0 Number of students enrolled in the Chalatenango Center functioning as a MEGATEC institute. Graduation rate of students enrolled in the Chalatenango Center functioning as a MEGATEC institute. Number of students enrolled in participating middle technical schools. Graduation rate of students enrolled in participating middle technical schools. Number of students enrolled in non-formal training activities. Graduation rate of students enrolled in non-formal training activities. Number of households with access to water in the Northern Zone. Number of households with access to basic sanitation in the Northern Zone. Number of households with electricity in the Northern Zone. Number of individuals that benefit annually from the strategic infrastructure projects. Productive Development Project 84,196,330 Increase production and employment in the Northern Zone 0 Investment in productive chains by selected beneficiaries. Connectivity Project 234,963,039 Reduce travel cost and time within the Northern Zone, with the rest of the country, and within the region 0 Weighted average of the International Roughness Index for the rehabilitation of the Transnational Highway. Weighted average of the International Roughness Index for the rehabilitation of the network of connecting roads. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 50,106,024 0 Pending Subsequent Report ** 4,882,131 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Mali Year: 2008 Quarter 1 Total obligation: $460,684,411 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Mali Total quarterly disbursement: $3,520,714 Bamako Se nou Airport Improvement Project $89,631,177 Establish an independent and secure link to the regional and global economy $1,377, 281 Number of weekly flight arrivals and departures. Average time for passengers to complete departures and arrivals procedures. Industrial Park Project 94,353,559 Develop a platform for industrial activity to be located within the Airport domain 2,080,155 Occupancy level. Average number of days required for operator to connect to Industrial Park water and electricity services. Alatona Irrigation Project 234,884,675 Increase the agricultural production and productivity in the Alatona zone of the ON. 0 Weighted average of the International Roughness Index for the rehabilitation of the Niono-Goma Coura road. Annual average daily count of vehicles on the Niono-Goma Coura road. Total amount of land irrigated by the Project in the Alatona zone. Average water volume delivered at the farm level in the Alatona zone. Crop water requirements as a percentage share of water supply at the canal headworks in the Alatona zone. Number of 5 and 10 hectare farm plots allocated in the Alatona zone. Total market garden parcels allocated in the Alatona zone. Number of titles registered in the land registration office granted to households in the Alatona zone. Number of students enrolled in schools established by the Project. Graduation rate of students enrolled in schools established by the Project. Number of farms adopting at least one new extension technique as a percentage of all farms receiving technical assistance under the Project. Total amount of credit extended in loan portfolios by participating microfinance institutions and banks in the Alatona zone. Number of active clients of microfinance institutions and banks in the Alatona zone. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 41,815,000 3,603,110 Pending Subsequent Report ** 0 Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Mozambique (CIF ONLY) 1 Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $25,346,200 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Mozambique Total quarterly disbursement: $0 Water and Sanitation Project N/A Increase access to reliable and quality water and sanitation facilities N/A Value of productive days gained due to less diarrhea, cholera and/or malaria. School attendance days gained due to less diarrhea, cholera and/or malaria. Number (Percent) of businesses with access to improved water source. Reduction in time for rural/urban households to access improved water sources. Number (Percent) of urban households with access to improved water sources. Number (Percent) of rural households with access to improved water sources. Number (Percent) of urban households with access to improved sanitation facilities. Road Rehabilitation Project N/A Increase access to productive resources and markets N/A Increase in agricultural production among communities affected by road rehabilitation works. Increase in the number of new businesses within 5 km of rehabilitated roads. Reduction in vehicle operating costs as a result of rehabilitated roads. Time savings due to a reduction in time to travel a fixed length of rehabilitated road. Weighted average of the International Roughness Index for the rehabilitation roads. Average annual daily traffic volume on rehabilitated roads disaggregated by vehicle type. Land Tenure Services Project N/A Establish efficient, secure land access for households and investors N/A Increase (Percent) in value of new investments on land. Number of new businesses. Reduction (Percent) in time to right to land usage. More efficient, free and secure land transfers/transactions. Increase (Percentage) in parcel-holder land value. Reduction (Percent) in costs to right to land usage. Farmer Income Support Project N/A Improve coconut productivity and diversification into cash crop N/A Reduction (Percentage) in loss of coconut production and coconut products' sales. Increased income (Percentage) from sales from intercropping activities to small farm plot holders. Increased number (Percentage) of live coconut trees. Increased productive capacity (Percentage) of coconut trees. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation N/A N/A Pending Subsequent Report ** N/A Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Lesotho (CIF ONLY) Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $15,668,416 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Lesotho Total quarterly disbursement: $369,321 Water Project $4,913,000 Improve the water supply for industrial and domestic needs, and enhance rural livelihoods through improved watershed management N/A Increased urban access to potable water supply. Increase in volume of water delivered after treatment at Metolong site. Decrease in percentage of urban water that is not accounted for (non-revenue losses plus physical losses). Number of people covered per year in rural areas with MCC funded rural water supply. Number of new VIP latrines provided to households. Health Project 4,436,000 Increase access to life-extending ART and essential health services by providing a sustainable delivery platform N/A Increase in the percentage of health facilities providing full package of standard services for level of center (MoHSW 2007 standard). Increase in TB treatment success rate. Increase in the percentage of health facilities staffed with standard number and type of qualified staff (MoHSW 2007 standard). Increase in the number of patients treated in health centers in Lesotho. Increase in immunization rate (measles). Number of people receiving ARV treatment (number). Increase in annual enrolment at National Health Training College. Increase in average referred tests performed at the central laboratory per quarter during the past year. Increase in average number of blood units collected per quarter during the past year. Private Sector Development Project 710,000 Stimulate investment by improving access to credit, reducing transaction costs and increasing the participation of women in the economy 30,000 Increase in the percentage of the adult population listed by a private credit bureau with current information on repayment history, unpaid debts or credit outstanding. Increase in the number of payments associated with salaries and pensions made through EFT per year. Land used as collateral (number of mortgage bonds registered). Land transaction costs (percent of property value). Land transaction times (median number of days necessary to complete a procedure). Increase in the number of pending civil cases in the High Court. Gender equality index (percent change in index of knowledge, attitudes, and practices for supporting gender equality in economic rights). Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 5,609,416 N/A Pending Subsequent Report ** N/A Projects Obligated Objectives Cumulative disbursements Measures Country: Morocco (CIF ONLY) Year: 2008 Quarter 2 Total obligation: $32,400,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Lesotho Total quarterly disbursement: $107,746 Fruit Tree Productivity $6,959,765 TBD N/A TBD. Small Scale Fisheries 7,005,874 TBD N/A TBD. Artisan and Fez Medina 6,142,437 TBD N/A TBD. Financial Services $500,000 TBD N/A TBD. Program Administration * and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation 11,271,924 TBD. 107,746 TBD Pending Subsequent Report ** N/A TBD N/A TBD. * Program administration funds are used to pay items such as salaries, rent, and the cost of office equipment. ** These amounts represent disbursements made that will be allocated to individual projects in the subsequent quarter(s) and reported as such in subsequent quarterly report(s) 1 Beginning in fiscal year 2007, CIF (i.e., Compact Implementation Funding) is assistance made available to a country, upon signature of a compact, under the authority of Section 609(g) of the Act. It is additional to compact program assistance provided under Section 605 of the Act upon entry into force of the compact and is included in the overall total of compact funding. As of this report, only CIF funds have been obligated for Mozambique, Lesotho and Morocco. 619(b) Transfer or allocation of funds U.S. agency to which funds were transferred or allocated Amount Description of program or project USAID $62,757,548 Threshold Program. Dated: May 2, 2008. Matthew McLean, Vice President, Congressional and Public Affairs, Millennium Challenge Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-10076 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9210-01-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-043)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Earth Science Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)announces a meeting of the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other persons scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. DATES: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Thursday, May 29, 2008, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room 6H45 and Room 5H45 consecutively, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-4452, fax

(202)358-4118, or *mnorris@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics: • Earth Science Division Update • Implications of the fiscal year 2009 Budget for Implementing the Decadal Survey • Role and Sequencing of Venture-Class Missions as Part of Earth Science Division's Portfolio It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information no less than 6 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can provide identifying information 3 working days in advance by contacting Marian Norris via e-mail at *mnorris@nasa.gov* or by telephone at

(202)358-4452. Dated: April 30, 3008. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10017 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-042)] Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announce a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. DATES: Thursday, May 22, 2008, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, Room 9H40. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-0732. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its 2nd Quarterly Meeting for 2008. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include updates on Technical Authority, Technical Standards, Fall Protection Standards, Drug and Alcohol Testing Standards, and Exploration Human vs. Robotic Review Process. The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Please contact Ms. Susan Burch on

(202)358-0550 at least 48 hours in advance to reserve a seat. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be required to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. All attendees will need to provide the following information to receive an access badge: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, county, phone), and title/position. Foreign Nationals will need to provide the following additional information: visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date. To expedite admittance, attendees can provide their identifying information in advance by contacting Ms. Susan Burch via e-mail at *susan.burch@nasa.gov* or by telephone at

(202)358-0550. Persons with disabilities who require assistance should indicate this. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch on

(202)358-0550 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA. Dated: April 30, 2008. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10016 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: *Name:* Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering (25104). *Date/Time:* June 9, 2008; 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Place:* National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 375, Arlington, VA. *Type of Meeting:* Open. *Contact Person:* Eduardo Feller, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230

(703)292-8710. If you are attending the meeting and need access to the NSF, please contact the individual listed above so you name may be added to the building access list. *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice concerning issues related to the international science and engineering programs and initiatives of the NSF. *Agenda:* Update on Program and Staff Activities. Discussion of Proposed International Policies and Practices and Draft Strategic Plan. NSB Report on International Science and Engineering Partnerships. Update on Developing Countries Initiatives. Committee of Visitors Report. Partnerships for International Research and Education. Dated: May 2, 2008. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10036 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation

(NSF)announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson, Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c),

(4)and

(6)of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. These closed proposal review meetings will no longer be announced on an individual basis in the **Federal Register** . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site: *http://www.nsf.gov/events/advisory.jsp.* This information may also be requested by telephoning 703/292-8182. Dated: May 2, 2008. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10037 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 17a-2; OMB Control No. 3235-0201; SEC File No. 270-189. 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 approval of extension of the existing collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 17a-2 (17 CFR 240.17a-2). Rule 17a-2 requires underwriters to maintain information regarding stabilizing activities conducted in accordance with Rule 104. The collections of information under Regulation M and Rule 17a-2 are necessary for covered persons to obtain certain benefits or to comply with certain requirements. The collections of information are necessary to provide the Commission with information regarding syndicate covering transactions and penalty bids. The Commission may review this information during periodic examinations or with respect to investigations. Except for the information required to be kept under Rule 104(i) (17 CFR 242.104(i)) and Rule 17a-2(c), none of the information required to be collected or disclosed for PRA purposes will be kept confidential. The recordkeeping requirement of Rule 17a-2 requires the information be maintained in a separate file, or in a separately retrievable format, for a period of three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f) (17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)). There are approximately 795 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 3975 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately 5 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 3975 burden hours. 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. Comments should be directed to

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

(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 within 30 days of this notice. Dated: April 30, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10041 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 17a-6; SEC File No. 270-506; OMB Control No. 3235-0564. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) 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. Section 17(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”) generally prohibits affiliated persons of a registered investment company (“fund”) from borrowing money or other property from, or selling or buying securities or other property to or from the fund, or any company that the fund controls. Rule 17a-6 (17 CFR 270.17a-6) permits a fund and a “portfolio affiliate” (a company that is an affiliated person of the fund because the fund controls the company, or holds 5 percent or more of the company's outstanding voting securities) to engage in principal transactions that would otherwise be prohibited under section 17(a) of the Act under certain conditions. A fund may not rely on the exemption in the rule to enter into a principal transaction with a portfolio affiliate if certain prohibited participants ( *e.g.* , directors, officers, employees, or investment advisers of the fund) have a financial interest in a party to the transaction. Rule 17a-6 specifies certain interests that are not “financial interests,” including any interest that the fund's board of directors (including a majority of the directors who are not interested persons of the fund) finds to be not material. A board making this finding is required to record the basis for the finding in its meeting minutes. This recordkeeping requirement is a collection of information under the rule. The rule is designed to permit transactions between funds and their portfolio affiliates in circumstances in which it is unlikely that the affiliate would be in a position to take advantage of the fund. In determining whether a financial interest is “material,” the board of the fund should consider whether the nature and extent of the interest in the transaction is sufficiently small that a reasonable person would not believe that the interest affected the determination of whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement or the terms of the transaction or arrangement. The information collection requirements in rule 17a-6 are intended to ensure that Commission staff can review, in the course of its compliance and examination functions, the basis for a board of directors' finding that the financial interest of an otherwise prohibited participant in a party to a transaction with a portfolio affiliate is not material. Based on analysis of past filings, Commission staff estimates that 148 funds are affiliated persons of 668 issuers as a result of the fund's ownership or control of the issuer's voting securities, and that there are approximately 1,000 such affiliate relationships. Based on staff discussions with a limited number of fund representatives, we estimate that funds currently do not rely on the exemption from the term “financial interest” with respect to any interest that the fund's board of directors (including a majority of the directors who are not interested persons of the fund) finds to be not material. Accordingly, we estimate that annually there will be no principal transactions under rule 17a-6 that will result in a collection of information. The Commission requests authorization to maintain an inventory of one burden hour to ease future renewals of rule 17a-6's collection of information analysis should funds rely on this exemption to the term “financial interest” as defined in rule 17a-6. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17a-6. 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)Adopt and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes securities in the best interest of clients, including procedures to address any material conflict that may arise between the interest of the adviser and the client;

(ii)disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser has voted with respect to their securities; and

(iii)describe to clients the advisers proxy voting policies and procedures and, on request, furnish a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client. The rule is designed to assure that advisers that vote proxies for their clients vote those proxies in their clients' best interest and provide clients with information about how their proxies were voted. Rule 206(4)-6 contains “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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. The collection is mandatory and responses to the disclosure requirement are not kept confidential. The respondents are investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to monitor the advisers' performance of its proxy voting activities. The information required by Rule 206(4)-6 also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and oversight program. Without the information collected under the rules, advisory clients would not have information they need to assess the adviser's services and monitor the adviser's handling of their accounts, and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs. The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the collection of information requirements under the rule is 9,166. It is estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average 10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the requirements of the proposed rule, for a total burden of 91,660 hours. We further estimate that on average, approximately 101 clients of each adviser, would request copies of the underlying policies and procedures. We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per client to deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total burden of approximately 92,577 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 206(4)-6 results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment advisers by a total of 184,237 hours. Records related to an adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and proxy voting history are separately required under the Advisers Act recordkeeping rule 204-2 (17 CFR 275.204-2). The standard retention period required for books and records under rule 204-2 is five years, in an easily accessible place, the first two years in an appropriate office of the investment adviser. OMB has previously approved the collection with this retention period. General comments regarding the above information should be directed 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: April 30, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10043 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 102; OMB Control No. 3235-0467; SEC File No. 270-409. 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 approval of extension of the existing collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 102 of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.102). Rule 102 prohibits distribution participants, issuers, and selling security holders from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by these rules may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as an exclusion for actively traded reference securities and the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates. There are approximately 945 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 1845 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately 1.95 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 1845 burden hours. 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. Comments should be directed to

(i)a subadviser of a fund to enter into transactions with funds the subadviser does not advise but which are affiliated persons of a fund that it does advise (e.g., other funds in the fund complex), and

(ii)a subadviser (and its affiliated persons) to enter into transactions and arrangements with funds the subadviser does advise, but only with respect to discrete portions of the subadvised fund for which the subadviser does not provide investment advice. To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the transaction; and the advisory contracts of the subadviser entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio. 1 1 See 17 CFR 270.17a-10(a)(2). 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 requires approximately 6 hours to draft and execute revised subadvisory contracts allowing funds and subadvisers to rely on the exemptions in rule 17a-10. 2 The staff assumes that all existing funds amended their advisory contracts following the adoption of rule 17a-10 in 2003 that conditioned certain exemptions upon these contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds. 3 2 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. 3 We assume that funds formed after 2002 that intended to rely on rule 17a-10 would have included the required provision as a standard element in their initial subadvisory contracts. Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into new subadvisory agreements each year. 4 Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours 5 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 17a-10. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 10f-3, 12d3-1, and 17e-1, 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 among all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 17a-10 for this contract change would be 0.75 hours. 6 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. 7 4 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. 5 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. 6 This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours ÷ 4 rules = .75 hours). 7 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). The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17a-10. Responses will not be 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: April 30, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10045 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 482; SEC File No. 270-508; OMB Control No. 3235-0565. 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. Like most issuers of securities, when an investment company 1 (“fund”) offers its shares to the public, its promotional efforts become subject to the advertising restrictions of the Securities Act of 1933, (15 U.S.C. 77) as amended (the “Securities Act”). In recognition of the particular problems faced by funds that continually offer securities and wish to advertise their securities, the Commission has previously adopted advertising safe harbor rules. The most important of these is Rule 482 (17 CFR 230.482) under the Securities Act, which, under certain circumstances, permits funds to advertise investment performance data, as well as other information. Rule 482 advertisements are deemed to be “prospectuses” under section 10(b) of the Securities Act. 2 1 “Investment company” refers to both investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and business development companies. 2 15 U.S.C. 77j(b). Rule 482 contains certain requirements regarding the disclosure that funds are required to provide in qualifying advertisements. These requirements are intended to encourage the provision to investors of information that is balanced and informative, particularly in the area of investment performance. For example, a fund is required to include disclosure advising investors to consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses, and other information described in the fund's prospectus or accompanying profile (if applicable), and highlighting the availability of the fund's prospectus. In addition, rule 482 advertisements that include performance data of open-end funds or insurance company separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts are required to include certain standardized performance information, information about any sales loads or other nonrecurring fees, and a legend warning that past performance does not guarantee future results. Such funds including performance information in rule 482 advertisements are also required to make available to investors month-end performance figures via Web site disclosure or by a toll-free telephone number, and to disclose the availability of the month-end performance data in the advertisement. The rule also sets forth requirements regarding the prominence of certain disclosures, requirements regarding advertisements that make tax representations, requirements regarding advertisements used prior to the effectiveness of the fund's registration statement, requirements regarding the timeliness of performance data, and certain required disclosures by money market funds. Rule 482 advertisements must be filed with the Commission or, in the alternative, with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). 3 This information collection differs from many other federal information collections that are primarily for the use and benefit of the collecting agency. 3 See Rule 24b-3 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.24b-3), which provides that any sales material, including rule 482 advertisements, shall be deemed filed with the Commission for purposes of Section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act upon filing with FINRA. As discussed above, rule 482 contains requirements that are intended to encourage the provision to investors of information that is balanced and informative, particularly in the area of investment performance. The Commission is concerned that in the absence of such provisions fund investors may be misled by deceptive rule 482 performance advertisements and may rely on less-than-adequate information when determining in which funds they should invest their money. As a result, the Commission believes it is beneficial for funds to provide investors with balanced information in fund advertisements in order to allow investors to make better-informed decisions. The Commission estimates that 89,077 responses are filed annually pursuant to rule 482 by 4,106 investment companies offering 37,265 portfolios. Respondents consist of all the investment companies that take advantage of the safe harbor offered by the rule for their advertisements. The burden associated with rule 482 is presently estimated to be 5.16 hours per response. The hourly burden is therefore approximately 459,637 hours (89,077 responses × 5.16 hours per response). 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 of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Cost burden is the cost of services purchased to comply with rule 482, such as for the services of computer programmers, outside counsel, financial printers, and advertising agencies. The Commission attributes no cost burden to rule 482. The provision of information under rule 482 is necessary to obtain the benefits of the safe harbor offered by the rule. The information provided is 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)The depositor or principal underwriter must secure from an insurance company a written guarantee of the refund requirements;

(ii)the insurance company must satisfy certain financial criteria; and

(iii)the depositor or principal underwriter must file as an exhibit to the issuer's registration statement, a copy of the written undertaking, an annual statement that the insurance company has met the requisite financial criteria on a monthly basis, and an annual audited balance sheet. 1 The information collection requirements for rule 27d-1 and Form N-27D-1 are covered in a separate **Federal Register** notice under OMB Control No. 3235-0560. 2 The rule sets forth minimum reserve amounts and guidelines for the management and disbursement of the assets in the account. Rule 27d-1(j) directs depositors and principal underwriters annually to make an accounting of their segregated trust accounts on Form N-27D-1, which is filed with the Commission. The form requires depositors and principal underwriters to report deposits to a segregated trust account, including those made pursuant to paragraphs

(c)and

(e)of the rule. Withdrawals pursuant to paragraph

(f)of the rule also must be reported. In addition, the form solicits information regarding the minimum amount required to be maintained under paragraphs

(d)and

(e)of rule 27d-1. Rules 27d-1 and 27d-2, which were explicitly authorized by statute, provide assurance that depositors and principal underwriters of issuers have access to sufficient cash to meet the demands of certificate holders who reconsider their decisions to invest in a periodic payment plan. The information collection requirements in rules 27d-1 and 27d-2 enable the Commission to monitor compliance with reserve rules. Rules 27d-1 and 27d-2, which were explicitly authorized by statute, provide assurance that depositors and principal underwriters of issuers have access to sufficient cash to meet the demands of certificate holders who reconsider their decisions to invest in a periodic payment plan. The information collection requirements in rules 27d-1 and 27d-2 enable the Commission to monitor compliance with reserve rules. Only one registered investment company has issued a new periodic payment plan certificate within the past 18 months, and the principal underwriter or depositor for this sole issuer relies on the exemption in rule 27d-2. The respondent makes approximately three responses per year. 3 The insurance company provides the written undertaking, annual statement, and certified balance sheet at no cost to the respondent. The staff estimates that the respondent spends approximately one hour per year filing the required documents from the insurance company on EDGAR. Thus, we estimate that the annual burden is approximately 1 hour. 3 The three responses are:

(i)Obtaining and filing the written undertaking or an amendment to the undertaking,

(ii)filing the insurance company's annual statement that the financial conditions were satisfied, and

(iii)filing the insurance company's certified balance sheet. The staff believes that rule 27d-2 does not impose any cost burdens other than those arising from the hour burdens discussed above. The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. 4 4 These estimates are based on telephone interviews between the Commission staff and representatives of depositors or principal underwriters of periodic payment plan issuers. Complying with the collection of information requirements of rule 27d-2 is mandatory for depositors or principal underwriters of issuers of periodic payment plans who rely on the rule for an exemption from complying with rule 27d-1 and filing Form N-27D-1 (17 CFR 274.127d-1). The information provided pursuant to rule 27d-2 is public and, therefore, will not be 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 OMB control number. Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:

(B)of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act. Summary of the Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to acquire shares of other registered open-end management investment companies and unit investment trusts that are within and outside the same group of investment companies. The order would supersede a prior order (the “Prior Order”). 1 1 *Fidelity Rutland Square Trust, et al.* , Investment Company Act Release Nos. 28008 (Sept. 28, 2007) (notice) and 28023 (Oct. 24, 2007) (order). Applicants: Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR”), Fidelity Management Trust Company (“FMTC”), Pyramis Global Advisors Trust Company (“PGATC”), Strategic Advisers, Inc. (“SAI”) (collectively, the “Adviser”); Fidelity Distributors Corporation (“FDC”) and National Financial Services LLC (“NFS”) (collectively, the “Distributor”); and Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (the “Trust”). Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 16, 2008, and amended on April 29, 2008. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, MA 02109. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6879, or Michael W. Mundt, Assistant Director, at

(202)551-6821 (Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1520 (telephone

(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. The Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of the state of Delaware and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust currently offers seven series that intend to rely on the relief requested by the application: PAS Core Income Fund of Funds, PAS Income Opportunities Fund of Funds, PAS International Fund of Funds, PAS International Fidelity Fund of Funds, PAS Small Cap Fund of Funds, PAS U.S. Opportunity Fund of Funds, and PAS U.S. Opportunity Fidelity Fund of Funds (“PAS Funds,” and each a “Fund of Funds”). 2 Each PAS Fund operates as a fund of funds and has its own distinct investment objectives, policies and restrictions. 2 Applicants request that the order extend to each registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that is part of the same group of investment companies, as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Trust (each included in the term “Fund of Funds”) and advised by the Adviser or any investment adviser controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser (each included in the term “Adviser”). Each existing registered open-end management investment company that currently intends to rely on the order is named as an applicant. Any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company that subsequently relies on the order will do so only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the application. 2. SAI currently serves as the investment adviser to each PAS Fund. FMR and SAI are investment advisers registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Each of FMTC and PGATC is a “bank” within the meaning of section 202(a)(2) of the Advisers Act and, accordingly, is exempt from registration under the Advisers Act. Any Adviser to a Fund will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each of FMR, FMTC, PGATC, and SAI is a direct or indirect subsidiary of FMR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. FDC and NFS are broker-dealers registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Each of FDC and NFS is a direct or indirect subsidiary of FMR LLC. FDC is currently the distributor of the PAS Funds. 3. Applicants request relief to permit:

(a)A Fund of Funds to acquire shares of registered open-end management investment companies that are not part of the same “group of investment companies” (as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act) as the Fund of Funds (the “Non-Affiliated Investment Companies”) and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are not part of the same group of investment companies as the Fund of Funds (“Non-Affiliated Trusts,” and together with the Non-Affiliated Investment Companies, the “Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds”);

(b)the Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds, their principal underwriter and brokers and dealers registered under the Exchange Act (“Brokers”) to sell such shares to the Fund of Funds;

(c)a Fund of Funds to acquire shares of certain other registered open-end management investment companies advised by the Adviser or series thereof and that are part of the same “group of investment companies” (as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act) as the Fund of Funds (“Affiliated Underlying Funds,” and together with the Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds, the “Underlying Funds”); and

(d)the Affiliated Underlying Funds, their principal underwriter and Brokers to sell such shares to the Fund of Funds. 3 Certain of the Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds may be registered under the Act as either UITs or open-end management investment companies and have received exemptive relief to permit their shares to be listed and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices (“ETFs”). Each Fund of Funds also may invest in stocks, bonds, money market instruments and other securities and financial instruments that are consistent with its investment objective. 3 With regard to purchases of shares of Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds, the requested order would apply to purchases made by a Fund of Funds only to the extent that the Fund of Funds could not rely on the provisions of section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act. Applicants' Legal Analysis A. Section 12(d)(1) 1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter and any broker or dealer from selling the shares of the investment company to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally. 2. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants seek an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act to permit the Funds of Funds to acquire shares of the Underlying Funds and to permit the Underlying Funds, their principal underwriter and Brokers to sell shares to the Funds of Funds beyond the limits set forth in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 3. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not give rise to the policy concerns underlying sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees, and overly complex fund structures. Accordingly, applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. 4. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not result in undue influence by a Fund of Funds or its affiliated persons over the Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds. The concern about undue influence does not arise in connection with a Fund of Funds' investment in the Affiliated Underlying Funds, since they are part of the same group of investment companies. To limit the control that a Fund of Funds may have over a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting:

(a)The Adviser, any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of the Act advised or sponsored by the Adviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser (collectively, the “Group”); and

(b)any investment adviser to a Fund of Funds within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (“Subadviser”), any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Subadviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Subadviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Subadviser (collectively, the “Subadviser Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. 5. Applicants further state that condition 2 below precludes a Fund of Funds and its Adviser, Subadviser, promoter, principal underwriter and any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with any of these entities (each, a “Fund Affiliate”) from causing any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or a Fund Affiliate and the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund or its investment adviser(s), sponsor, promoter, principal underwriter and any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with any of these entities (each, a “Non-Affiliated Fund Affiliate”). No Fund of Funds or Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Non-Affiliated Investment Company or sponsor to a Non-Affiliated Trust) will cause a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of any underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, Adviser, Subadviser, or employee of the Fund of Funds, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, Adviser, Subadviser, or employee is an affiliated person (each, an “Underwriting Affiliate,” except any person whose relationship to the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act is not an Underwriting Affiliate). An offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate is an “Affiliated Underwriting.” 6. Applicants also propose a condition that once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company to the Fund of Funds or a Fund Affiliate Service Provider 4 in connection with any services or transactions:

(a)Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company;

(b)is within the range of consideration that the Non-Affiliated Investment Company would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and

(c)does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. 4 A“Fund Affiliate Service Provider” is the Adviser, any Subadviser, promoter or principal underwriter of the Fund of Funds, and any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with any of these entities, provided that

(i)such person would reasonably be expected to be in a position to provide services of a securities-related nature (that is, investment advisory, brokerage, distribution, transfer agency, administration, participant recordkeeping or shareholder services) to a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund, or

(ii)if such person is not described by clause (i), to the actual knowledge of the Adviser, any Subadviser, promoter or principal underwriter of the Fund of Funds, such person currently has or is reasonably expected to begin having a material business relationship with a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund. 7. To further assure that a Non-Affiliated Investment Company understands the implications of an investment by a Fund of Funds under the requested order, prior to a Fund of Funds' investment in a Non-Affiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Fund of Funds and Non-Affiliated Investment Company will execute an agreement stating, without limitation, that their boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers understand the terms and conditions of the order and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order (“Participation Agreement”). Applicants note that a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund will retain the right to reject any direct investment from a Fund of Funds. 5 5 To the extent a Fund of Funds purchases shares of a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund that is an ETF in the secondary market, the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund would still retain its ability to reject initial purchases of shares made in reliance on the requested order by declining to enter into a Participation Agreement prior to any investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 8. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. With respect to investment advisory fees, applicants state that, prior to approving any investment advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of trustees of the Fund of Funds (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the “Independent Trustees”), will find that the investment advisory fees charged under the Fund of Fund's investment advisory contract are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to any Underlying Fund's advisory contract(s). Applicants further state that the Adviser or Distributor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by a Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Non-Affiliated Investment Company under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund by the Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Adviser or its affiliated person by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund. Applicants also state that any sales charges and/or service fees, as defined in Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the NASD (“NASD Conduct Rule 2830”), charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830. 9. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that an Underlying Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A), except in certain circumstances identified in condition 12 below. Applicants also represent that a Fund of Funds' prospectus and sales literature will contain concise, “plain English” disclosure designed to inform investors about the unique characteristics of the proposed arrangement, including its expense structure and the additional expenses of investing in Underlying Funds. B. Section 17(a) 10. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits sales or purchases of securities between a registered investment company and any affiliated person of the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include:

(a)Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person;

(b)any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the other person; and

(c)any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the other person. 11. Applicants state that if a Fund of Funds and an Affiliated Underlying Fund were deemed to be under common control, they would be affiliated persons of each another. Applicants also state that a Fund of Funds and an Underlying Fund might be deemed to be affiliated persons of one another if a Fund of Funds acquires 5% or more of an Underlying Fund's outstanding voting securities. In light of these possible affiliations, section 17(a) could prevent an Underlying Fund from selling shares to and redeeming shares from a Fund of Funds. 6 6 Applicants note that a Fund of Funds investing in Non-Affiliated Underlying Funds that are ETFs generally would purchase and sell shares of the ETFs through secondary market transactions at market prices rather than through principal transactions with the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund. Applicants would not rely on the requested relief from section 17(a) for such secondary market transactions. To the extent that a Fund of Funds purchases or redeems shares from a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund that is an ETF and an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds in exchange for a basket of specified securities as described in the application for the exemptive order upon which the ETF relies, applicants also request relief from section 17(a) for those transactions. A Fund of Funds would not purchase or redeem shares directly from an Affiliated Underlying Fund operating as an ETF. 12. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that:

(a)The terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned;

(b)the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and

(c)the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. 13. Applicants submit that the proposed transactions satisfy the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act as the terms are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching. 7 Applicants note that the terms upon which an Underlying Fund will sell its shares to or purchase its shares from a Fund of Funds will be based on the net asset value of each Underlying Fund. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will be consistent with the policies of each Fund of Funds and Underlying Fund, and with the general purposes of the Act. 7 Applicants acknowledge that receipt of compensation by

(a)an affiliated person of a Fund of Funds, or an affiliated person of such person, for the purchase by the Fund of Funds of shares of an Underlying Fund or

(b)an affiliated person of an Underlying Fund, or an affiliated person of such person, for the sale by the Underlying Fund of its shares to a Fund of Funds may be prohibited by section 17(e)(1) of the Act. The Participation Agreement also will include this acknowledgement. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. The members of the Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Subadviser Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund, the Group or the Subadviser Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund, it will vote its shares of the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund's shares. This condition will not apply to the Subadviser Group with respect to a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund for which the Subadviser or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Subadviser, acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (in the case of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company) or as the sponsor (in the case of a Non-Affiliated Trust). 2. No Fund of Funds or Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or a Fund Affiliate and the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund or a Non-Affiliated Fund Affiliate. 3. The Board of the Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to assure that the Adviser and any Subadviser are conducting the investment program of the Fund of Funds without taking into account any consideration received by the Fund of Funds or a Fund Affiliate from a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund or a Non-Affiliated Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions. 4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company to the Fund of Funds or a Fund Affiliate Service Provider in connection with any services or transactions:

(a)Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company;

(b)is within the range of consideration that the Non-Affiliated Investment Company would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and

(c)does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Non-Affiliated Investment Company and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such investment adviser(s). 5. No Fund of Funds or Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Non-Affiliated Investment Company or sponsor to a Non-Affiliated Trust) will cause a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting. 6. The board of directors or trustees of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The board of directors or trustees of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Non-Affiliated Investment Company. The board of directors or trustees of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company will consider, among other things:

(a)Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company;

(b)how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and

(c)whether the amount of securities purchased by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The board of directors or trustees of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to assure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interests of shareholders. 7. Each Non-Affiliated Investment Company will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase from an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth the

(a)Party from whom the securities were acquired,

(b)identity of the underwriting syndicate's members,

(c)terms of the purchase, and

(d)information or materials upon which the determinations of the board of directors or trustees of the Non-Affiliated Investment Company were made. 8. Before investing in a Non-Affiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Fund of Funds and the Non-Affiliated Investment Company will execute a Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that their boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers understand the terms and conditions of the order and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in shares of a Non-Affiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), the Fund of Funds will notify the Non-Affiliated Investment Company of the investment. At such time, the Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Non-Affiliated Investment Company a list of the names of each Fund Affiliate Service Provider and Underwriting Affiliate. The Fund of Funds will notify the Non-Affiliated Investment Company of any changes to the list of names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Non-Affiliated Investment Company and the Fund of Funds will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place. 9. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the Board of the Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under the advisory contract will be based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Underlying Fund in which the Fund of Funds may invest. These findings and the basis upon which they are made will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Fund of Funds. 10. The Adviser or Distributor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by a Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Non-Affiliated Investment Company under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund by the Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Adviser or its affiliated person by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund. Any Subadviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Subadviser, directly or indirectly, by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund by the Subadviser, or an affiliated person of the Subadviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Subadviser or its affiliated person by the Non-Affiliated Investment Company, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Non-Affiliated Underlying Fund made at the direction of the Subadviser. In the event that the Subadviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Fund of Funds. 11. Any sales charges and/or service fees (as defined in NASD Conduct Rule 2830) charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830. 12. No Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent that such Underlying Fund:

(a)Receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act); or

(b)acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Underlying Fund to

(i)acquire securities of one or more affiliated investment companies for short-term cash management purposes, or

(B)of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (“Amended Order”) that would amend a prior order that permits certain series of a registered open-end management investment company advised by Abundance Technologies, Inc. (the “Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of other registered open-end management investment companies and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) (collectively, the “Underlying Funds”) that are outside the same group of investment companies as the Funds of Funds (“Prior Order”). 1 The Amended Order would amend a condition of the Prior Order to permit Funds of Funds to invest in Underlying Funds that serve as feeder funds in a master-feeder structure in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. 1 *The RBB Fund, Inc. and Abundance Technologies, Inc.,* Investment Company Act Release Nos. 27749 (Mar. 8, 2007) (notice) and 27775 (Apr. 3, 2007) (order). Applicants: The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) and Abundance Technologies, Inc. (the “Adviser”). Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 7, 2008. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, The RBB Fund, Inc., 103 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809 and Abundance Technologies, Inc., 3700 Park 42 Drive, Suite 105A, Cincinnati, OH 42141. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6811, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1520 (telephone

(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. On April 3, 2007, the Commission issued the Prior Order to the Company, a registered open-end management investment company, and the Adviser, a registered investment adviser, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act. The Prior Order permits the Funds of Funds to acquire shares of Underlying Funds that are not part of the same “group of investment companies” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds of Funds (the “Underlying Funds”) and the Underlying Funds to sell such shares to the Funds of Funds. 2 2 All Funds of Funds that currently intend to rely on the Amended Order are named as applicants. Any other investment company that relies on the Amended Order in the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Amended Order. 2. Condition 12 in the Prior Order provides that an Underlying Fund will not acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, subject to certain exceptions relating to reorganizations of portfolio companies, cash management and interfund lending. Applicants seek to modify condition 12 to permit the Funds of Funds to acquire shares of Underlying Funds that operate as feeder funds in a master-feeder structure in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act and are in the same “group of investment companies” as their corresponding master funds. Applicants argue that a master-feeder arrangement would not result in an overly complex structure because it is entirely transparent. Applicants submit that an investment in an Underlying Fund that operates as a feeder fund would be no different than investing in one that does not use a master-feeder arrangement. Applicants' Condition Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the conditions in the Prior Order except that Condition 12 of the Prior Order will be modified to read as follows: 12. No Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent that such Underlying Fund:

(a)Acquires such securities in compliance with section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act;

(b)receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act); or

(c)acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Underlying Fund to:

(i)Acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes, or

(ii)engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10015 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Nos. 33-8916; 34-57766/May 2, 2008] Order Making Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Adjustments to the Fee Rates Applicable Under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(e), 14(g), 31(b), and 31(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 I. Background The Commission collects fees under various provisions of the securities laws. Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) requires the Commission to collect fees from issuers on the registration of securities. 1 Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) requires the Commission to collect fees on specified repurchases of securities. 2 Section 14(g) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect fees on proxy solicitations and statements in corporate control transactions. 3 Finally, Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Exchange Act require national securities exchanges and national securities associations, respectively, to pay fees to the Commission on transactions in specified securities. 4 1 15 U.S.C. 77f(b). 2 15 U.S.C. 78m(e). 3 15 U.S.C. 78n(g). 4 15 U.S.C. 78ee(b) and (c). In addition, Section 31(d) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect assessments from national securities exchanges and national securities associations for round turn transactions on security futures. 15 U.S.C. 78ee(d). The Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (“Fee Relief Act”) 5 amended Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e), 14(g), and 31 of the Exchange Act to require the Commission to make annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under these sections for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011, and one final adjustment to fix the fee rates under these sections for fiscal year 2012 and beyond. 6 5 Pub. L. 107-123, 115 Stat. 2390 (2002). 6 *See* 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(5), 77f(b)(6), 78m(e)(5), 78m(e)(6), 78n(g)(5), 78n(g)(6), 78ee(j)(1), and 78ee(j)(3). Section 31(j)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78ee(j)(2), also requires the Commission, in specified circumstances, to make a mid-year adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Exchange Act in fiscal years 2002 through 2011. II. Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rates Applicable Under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Act requires the Commission to make an annual adjustment to the fee rate applicable under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act in each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011. 7 In those same fiscal years, Sections 13(e)(5) and 14(g)(5) of the Exchange Act require the Commission to adjust the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) to a rate that is equal to the rate that is applicable under Section 6(b). In other words, the annual adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act also sets the annual adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act. 7 The annual adjustments are designed to adjust the fee rate in a given fiscal year so that, when applied to the aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be offered for the fiscal year, it is reasonably likely to produce total fee collections under Section 6(b) equal to the “target offsetting collection amount” specified in Section 6(b)(11)(A) for that fiscal year. Section 6(b)(5) sets forth the method for determining the annual adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) for fiscal year 2009. Specifically, the Commission must adjust the fee rate under Section 6(b) to a “rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices for [fiscal year 2009], is reasonably likely to produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 6(b)] that are equal to the target offsetting collection amount for [fiscal year 2009].” That is, the adjusted rate is determined by dividing the “target offsetting collection amount” for fiscal year 2009 by the “baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices” for fiscal year 2009. Section 6(b)(11)(A) specifies that the “target offsetting collection amount” for fiscal year 2009 is $284,000,000. 8 Section 6(b)(11)(B) defines the “baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price” for fiscal year 2009 as “the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be offered pursuant to registration statements filed with the Commission during [fiscal year 2009] as determined by the Commission, after consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget * * *.” 8 Congress determined the target offsetting collection amounts by applying reduced fee rates to the CBO's January 2001 projections of the aggregate maximum offering prices for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In any fiscal year through fiscal year 2011, the annual adjustment mechanism will result in additional fee rate reductions if the CBO's January 2001 projection of the aggregate maximum offering prices for the fiscal year proves to be too low, and fee rate increases if the CBO's January 2001 projection of the aggregate maximum offering prices for the fiscal year proves to be too high. To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price for fiscal year 2009, the Commission is using the same methodology it developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) and Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to project aggregate offering price for purposes of the fiscal year 2008 annual adjustment. Using this methodology, the Commission determines the “baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price” for fiscal year 2009 to be $5,091,289,629,574. 9 Based on this estimate, the Commission calculates the fee rate for fiscal 2009 to be $55.80 per million. This adjusted fee rate applies to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act, as well as to Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act. 9 Appendix A explains how we determined the “baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price” for fiscal year 2009 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical process of calculating the fiscal year 2009 annual adjustment based on that estimate. The appendix includes the data used by the Commission in making its “baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price” for fiscal year 2009. III. Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rates Applicable Under Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Exchange Act Section 31(b) of the Exchange Act requires each national securities exchange to pay the Commission a fee at a rate, as adjusted by our order pursuant to Section 31(j)(2), 10 which currently is $5.60 per million of the aggregate dollar amount of sales of specified securities transacted on the exchange. Similarly, Section 31(c) requires each national securities association to pay the Commission a fee at the same adjusted rate on the aggregate dollar amount of sales of specified securities transacted by or through any member of the association otherwise than on an exchange. Section 31(j)(1) requires the Commission to make annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and

(c)for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011. 11 10 Order Making Fiscal 2008 Mid-Year Adjustment to the Fee Rates Applicable Under Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rel. No. 34-57407 (February 29, 2008), 73 FR 12228 (March 6, 2008). 11 The annual adjustments, as well as the mid-year adjustments required in specified circumstances under Section 31(j)(2) in fiscal years 2002 through 2011, are designed to adjust the fee rates in a given fiscal year so that, when applied to the aggregate dollar volume of sales for the fiscal year, they are reasonably likely to produce total fee collections under Section 31 equal to the “target offsetting collection amount” specified in Section 31( *l* )(1) for that fiscal year. Section 31(j)(1) specifies the method for determining the annual adjustment for fiscal year 2009. Specifically, the Commission must adjust the rates under Sections 31(b) and

(c)to a “uniform adjusted rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales for [fiscal year 2009], is reasonably likely to produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 31] (including assessments collected under [Section 31(d)]) that are equal to the target offsetting collection amount for [fiscal year 2009].” Section 31(l)(1) specifies that the “target offsetting collection amount” for fiscal year 2009 is $1,023,000,000. 12 Section 31(l)(2) defines the “baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales” as “the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales of securities * * * to be transacted on each national securities exchange and by or through any member of each national securities association (otherwise than on a national securities exchange) during [fiscal year 2009] as determined by the Commission, after consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget * * *.” 12 Congress determined the target offsetting collection amounts by applying reduced fee rates to the CBO's January 2001 projections of dollar volume for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In any fiscal year through fiscal year 2011, the annual and, in specified circumstances, mid-year adjustment mechanisms will result in additional fee rate reductions if the CBO's January 2001 projection of dollar volume for the fiscal year proves to be too low, and fee rate increases if the CBO's January 2001 projection of dollar volume for the fiscal year proves to be too high. To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales for fiscal year 2009, the Commission is using the same methodology it developed in consultation with the CBO and OMB to project dollar volume for purposes of prior fee adjustments. 13 Using this methodology, the Commission calculates the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales for fiscal year 2009 to be $113,703,210,464,919. Based on this estimate, and an estimated collection of $18,755 in assessments on security futures transactions under Section 31(d) in fiscal year 2009, the uniform adjusted rate for fiscal year 2009 is $9.30 per million. 14 13 Appendix B explains how we determined the “baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales” for fiscal year 2009 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical process of calculating the fiscal year 2009 annual adjustment based on that estimate. The appendix also includes the data used by the Commission in making its “baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales” for fiscal year 2009. 14 The calculation of the adjusted fee rate assumes that the current fee rate of $5.60 per million will apply through October 31, 2008, due to the operation of the effective date provision contained in Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act. IV. Effective Dates of the Annual Adjustments Section 6(b)(8)(A) of the Securities Act provides that the fiscal year 2009 annual adjustment to the fee rate applicable under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act shall take effect on the later of October 1, 2008, or five days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2009 is enacted. 15 Sections 13(e)(8)(A) and 14(g)(8)(A) of the Exchange Act provide for the same effective date for the annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act. 16 15 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(8)(A). 16 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(8)(A) and 78n(g)(8)(A). Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that the fiscal year 2009 annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Exchange Act shall take effect on the later of October 1, 2008, or 30 days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2009 is enacted. V. Conclusion Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e), 14(g), and 31 of the Exchange Act, 17 17 15 U.S.C. 77f(b), 78m(e), 78n(g), and 78ee(j). *It is hereby ordered* that the fee rates applicable under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act shall be $55.80 per million effective on the later of October 1, 2008, or five days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2009 is enacted; and *It is further ordered* that the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and

(c)of the Exchange Act shall be $9.30 per million effective on the later of October 1, 2008, or 30 days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2009 is enacted. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. Appendix A With the passage of the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act, Congress has, among other things, established a target amount of monies to be collected from fees charged to issuers based on the value of their registrations. This appendix provides the formula for determining such fees, which the Commission adjusts annually. Congress has mandated that the Commission determine these fees based on the “aggregate maximum offering prices,” which measures the aggregate dollar amount of securities registered with the Commission over the course of the year. In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of monies targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set to reflect projected aggregate maximum offering prices. As a percentage, the fee rate equals the ratio of the target amounts of monies to the projected aggregate maximum offering prices. For 2009, the Commission has estimated the aggregate maximum offering prices by projecting forward the trend established in the previous decade. More specifically, an ARIMA model was used to forecast the value of the aggregate maximum offering prices for months subsequent to March 2008, the last month for which the Commission has data on the aggregate maximum offering prices. *The following sections describe this process in detail.* A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Maximum Offering Prices for Fiscal Year 2009 First, calculate the aggregate maximum offering prices

(AMOP)for each month in the sample (March 1998-March 2008). Next, calculate the percentage change in the AMOP from month to month. Model the monthly percentage change in AMOP as a first order moving average process. The moving average approach allows one to model the effect that an exceptionally high (or low) observation of AMOP tends to be followed by a more “typical” value of AMOP. Use the estimated moving average model to forecast the monthly percent change in AMOP. These percent changes can then be applied to obtain forecasts of the total dollar value of registrations. The following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the procedure: 1. Begin with the monthly data for AMOP. The sample spans ten years, from March 1998 to March 2008. 2. Divide each month's AMOP (column C) by the number of trading days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily AMOP (AAMOP, column D). 3. For each month t, the natural logarithm of AAMOP is reported in column E. 4. Calculate the change in log(AAMOP) from the previous month as Δ t = log (AAMOP t )−log(AAMOP t-1 ). This approximates the percentage change. 5. Estimate the first order moving average model Δ t = α + βe t-1 + e t , where e t denotes the forecast error for month t. The forecast error is simply the difference between the one-month ahead forecast and the actual realization of Δ t . The forecast error is expressed as e t = Δ t −α−βe t-1 . The model can be estimated using standard commercially available software such as SAS or Eviews. Using least squares, the estimated parameter values are α = 0.00154 and β = −0.87424. 6. For the month of April 2008 forecast Δ t=4/08 = α + βe t = 3/08 . For all subsequent months, forecast Δ t = α. 7. Calculate forecasts of log(AAMOP). For example, the forecast of log(AAMOP) for June 2008 is given by FLAAMOP t = 6/08 = log(AAMOP t = 3/08 ) + Δ t=4/08 +Δ t = 5/08 + Δ t = 6/08 . 8. Under the assumption that e t is normally distributed, the n-step ahead forecast of AAMOP is given by exp(FLAAMOP t + σ n 2 /2), where σ n denotes the standard error of the n-step ahead forecast. 9. For June 2008, this gives a forecast AAMOP of $19.7 Billion (Column I), and a forecast AMOP of $414.1 Billion (Column J). 10. Iterate this process through September 2009 to obtain a baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices for fiscal year 2009 of $5,091,289,629,574. B. Using the Forecasts From A to Calculate the New Fee Rate 1. Using the data from Table A, estimate the aggregate maximum offering prices between 10/1/08 and 9/30/09 to be $5,091,289,629,574. 2. The rate necessary to collect the target $284,000,000 in fee revenues set by Congress is then calculated as: $284,000,000 ÷ $5,091,289,629,574 = 0.00005578. 3. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a rate of .0000558 (or $55.80 per million). EN07MY08.060 EN07MY08.061 EN07MY08.062 EN07MY08.063 BILLING CODE 8010-01-C Appendix B With the passage of the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act, Congress has, among other things, established a target amount of monies to be collected from fees charged to investors based on the value of their transactions. This appendix provides the formula for determining such fees, which the Commission adjusts annually, and may adjust semi-annually. 18 In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of monies targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set to reflect projected dollar transaction volume on the securities exchanges and certain over-the-counter markets over the course of the year. As a percentage, the fee rate equals the ratio of the target amounts of monies to the projected dollar transaction volume. 18 Congress requires that the Commission make a mid-year adjustment to the fee rate if four months into the fiscal year it determines that its forecasts of aggregate dollar volume are reasonably likely to be off by 10% or more. For 2009, the Commission has estimated dollar transaction volume by projecting forward the trend established in the previous decade. More specifically, dollar transaction volume was forecasted for months subsequent to March 2008, the last month for which the Commission has data on transaction volume. *The following sections describe this process in detail.* A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Dollar Amount of Sales for Fiscal Year 2009 First, calculate the average daily dollar amount of sales

(ADS)for each month in the sample (March 1998-March 2008). The monthly aggregate dollar amount of sales (exchange plus certain over-the-counter markets) is presented in column C of Table B. Next, calculate the change in the natural logarithm of ADS from month to month. The average monthly percentage growth of ADS over the entire sample is 0.015 and the standard deviation is 0.126. Assuming the monthly percentage change in ADS follows a random walk, calculating the expected monthly percentage growth rate for the full sample is straightforward. The expected monthly percentage growth rate of ADS is 2.3%. Now, use the expected monthly percentage growth rate to forecast total dollar volume. For example, one can use the ADS for March 2008 ($338,395,058,873) to forecast ADS for April 2008 ($346,177,695,873= $338,395,058,873 × 1.023). 19 Multiply by the number of trading days in April 2008

(22)to obtain a forecast of the total dollar volume for the month ($7,615,909,309,196). Repeat the method to generate forecasts for subsequent months. 19 The value 1.023 has been rounded. All computations are done with the unrounded value. *The forecasts for total dollar volume are in column G of Table B. The following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the procedure:* 1. Divide each month's total dollar volume (column C) by the number of trading days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily dollar volume (ADS, column D). 2. For each month t, calculate the change in ADS from the previous month as Δ t = log (ADS t /ADS t-1 ), where log

(x)denotes the natural logarithm of x. 3. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the series {Δ 1 , Δ 2 , . . . , Δ 120 }. These are given by μ = 0.015 and σ = 0.126, respectively. 4. Assume that the natural logarithm of ADS follows a random walk, so that Δ s and Δ t are statistically independent for any two months s and t. 5. Under the assumption that Δ t is normally distributed, the expected value of ADS t /ADS t-1 is given by exp (μ + σ 2 /2), or on average ADS t = 1.023 × ADS t-1 . 6. For April 2008, this gives a forecast ADS of 1.023 × $338,395,058,873 = $346,177,695,873. Multiply this figure by the 22 trading days in April 2008 to obtain a total dollar volume forecast of $7,615,909,309,196. 7. For May 2008, multiply the April 2008 ADS forecast by 1.023 to obtain a forecast ADS of $354,139,323,188. Multiply this figure by the 21 trading days in May 2008 to obtain a total dollar volume forecast of $7,436,925,786,952. 8. Repeat this procedure for subsequent months. B. Using the Forecasts from A to Calculate the New Fee Rate 1. Use Table B to estimate fees collected for the period 10/1/08 through 10/31/08. The projected aggregate dollar amount of sales for this period is $9,125,934,321,266. Projected fee collections at the current fee rate of 0.0000056 are $51,105,232. 2. Estimate the amount of assessments on securities futures products collected during 10/1/08 and 9/30/09 to be $18,755 by projecting a 2.3% monthly increase from a base of $1,173 in March 2008. 3. Subtract the amounts $51,105,232 and $18,755 from the target offsetting collection amount set by Congress of $1,023,000,000 leaving $971,876,013 to be collected on dollar volume for the period 11/1/08 through 9/30/09. 4. Use Table B to estimate dollar volume for the period 11/1/08 through 9/30/09. The estimate is $104,577,276,143,653. Finally, compute the fee rate required to produce the additional $971,876,013 in revenue. This rate is $971,876,013 divided by $104,577,276,143,653 or 0.0000092934. 5. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a rate of .0000093 (or $9.30 per million). EN07MY08.064 EN07MY08.065 EN07MY08.066 [FR Doc. E8-10068 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-C SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57738; File No. SR-Amex-2007-129] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Relating to an Exchange Member's Conduct in Doing Business With the Public April 29, 2008. I. Introduction Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 , as amended, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 on November 29, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change relating to the Exchange's rules governing doing business with the public. On March 19, 2008, the Commission issued a release noticing the proposed rule change, which was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 25, 2008. 3 The comment period expired on April 15, 2008. The Commission did not receive any comment letters in response to the proposed rule change. On April 17, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to make a technical edit to the proposed rule change. 4 This order provides notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and approves the proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57527 (Mar. 19, 2008), 73 FR 15810 (Mar. 25, 2008). 4 Amendment No. 1 corrects an internal cross-reference and does not contain any substantive modifications to the rule text. II. Description of Amex Proposal Amex proposes to amend certain Amex Rules that govern an Exchange member's conduct in doing business with the public. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require member organizations (also referred to as “member firms” or “firms”) to integrate the responsibility for supervision of their public customer options business into their overall supervisory and compliance programs. In addition, the proposal would require member firms to strengthen their supervisory procedures and internal controls as related to their public customer options business. A. Integration of Options Supervision The purpose of the proposed rule change is to create a supervisory structure for options that is similar to that required by New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE) Rule 342 and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) Rule 3010. 5 The proposed rule change would also conform Amex rules to those of the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (“CBOE”) by eliminating the requirement that a member firm, qualified to do a public customer business in options, designate a single person to act as a Senior Registered Options Principal (“SROP”) for the member organization and that each such member organization designate a specific individual as a Compliance Registered Options Principal (“CROP”). 6 The Exchange proposes to eliminate the SROP and CROP supervisory categories, allowing member firms to supervise their options activities through their overall supervisory and compliance programs that monitor all other securities products. 5 On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (Aug. 1, 2007). The FINRA rule book currently consists of both NASD rules and certain NYSE rules that FINRA has incorporated. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56492 (Sept. 21, 2007), 72 FR 54952 (Sept. 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-106). The SROP concept was first introduced during the early years of development of the listed options market. Previously under Amex rules, member firms were required to designate one or more persons qualified as Registered Options Principals (“ROPs”) to have supervisory responsibilities with respect to the firms’ options business. As the number of ROPs at larger firms began to increase, the Amex imposed an additional requirement that member firms designate one of their ROPs as the SROP. This was intended to eliminate confusion as to where the compliance and supervisory responsibilities lay by centralizing in a single supervisory officer overall responsibility for the supervision of a firms options activities. 7 Subsequently, following the recommendation of the Special Study of the Options Market, 8 the Amex and the other options exchanges required firms to designate a CROP to be responsible for each firm's overall compliance program with respect to its options activities. The CROP could be the same person designated as a SROP, but while the CROP generally was not permitted to have sales functions in the firm, whereas the SROP was not so restricted. 7 *Report of the Special Study of the Options Market,* p. 316 note 11 (Dec. 22, 1978). 8 *Id.* at 335. Since the SROP and CROP requirements were first imposed, the supervisory function with respect to options activities of most securities firms has been integrated into their supervisory function for securities activities overall. This not only reflects the maturity of the options market, but also recognizes the ways in which the uses of options themselves have become more integrated with other securities in the implementation of particular strategies. By permitting supervision of a firm's options activities to be handled in the same manner as the supervision of its securities and futures activities, the proposed rule change would ensure that supervisory responsibility over each segment of a firm's business is assigned to the best qualified persons in the firm, thereby enhancing the overall quality of supervision and compliance. The proposed rule change would allow firms the flexibility to assign such supervisory and compliance responsibilities, which formerly resided with the SROP and/or CROP, to more than one individual. For example, the proposed rule change would permit a member firm to designate certain ROPs to be responsible for a variety of supervisory compliance functions such as approving acceptance of discretionary accounts, 9 approving communications to customers, 10 and allowing exceptions to a member firm's suitability standards for trading uncovered short options. 11 A firm would be likely to do this in instances where the firm believes it advantageous to do so to enhance its supervisory or compliance structure. Typically, a firm may also wish to divide these functions on the basis of geographic region or functional considerations. Amex Rule 920 would be amended to clarify the qualification requirements of individuals designated as ROPs and also to specify the registration requirements of individuals who accept orders from non-broker-dealer customers. 9 *See* proposed Amex Rule 924(a) and Commentary .05 to Rule 920. 10 *See* proposed Amex Rule 991(b). 11 *See* proposed Amex Rule 921(g)(3). With respect to discretionary accounts, the proposal would require acceptance of such accounts to be assigned to individuals who are qualified ROPs. 12 Further, the proposal would require that the individual who reviews the acceptance of a discretionary account (who is an individual other than the ROP who accepted the account as required by Amex Rule 924(a)) to be Series 4 qualified because such a review is not a routine sales supervisory function and requires more in-depth knowledge of options than that covered by the Series 9/10 examination. 13 The proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement that discretionary options orders be approved on the day of entry by a ROP (with one exception as discussed below) because such requirement is not consistent with the use of supervisory tools in computerized format or exception reports generated after the close of trading day. No similar requirement exists for supervision of other securities accounts that are handled on a discretionary basis. 14 Discretionary orders would be required to be reviewed in accordance with a firm's written supervisory procedures. Amex believes that the proposed rule change would ensure that supervisory responsibilities are assigned to specific qualified individuals, thereby enhancing the quality of supervision. 12 *See* proposed Amex Rule 924(a) and Commentary .04 to Rule 920. 13 *See* supra note 9. 14 *See, e.g.,* NYSE Rule 408. The proposed rule change would revise Amex Rule 924 by adding as Commentary .01, a requirement that any firm that does not utilize computerized surveillance tools for the frequent and appropriate review of discretionary account activity must establish and implement procedures to require ROP-qualified individuals (“Qualified Individuals”) who have been designated to review discretionary accounts to approve and initial each discretionary order on the day entered. The Exchange believes that any firm that does not utilize computerized surveillance tools to monitor discretionary account activity should continue to be required to perform the daily manual review of discretionary orders. Under the proposed rule change, firms would continue to be required to designate Qualified Individuals to provide frequent appropriate supervisory review of options discretionary accounts. 15 Qualified Individuals would review the accounts to determine whether the ROP accepting the account had a reasonable basis for believing that the customer was able to understand and bear the risks of the proposed strategies or transactions. This requirement would provide an additional level of supervisory audit over options discretionary accounts that does not exist for other securities discretionary accounts. 15 *See* proposed Amex Rule 924(a). In addition, the proposed change to Amex Rule 922 would require that each member organization provide for the preparation and submission of a written annual report to one or more of its control persons or, if the firm has no control person, to the audit committee of its board of directors or its equivalent group (collectively referred to as, “Control Person”). The firm would be required to submit the report to the Exchange and to its Control Person by April 1st of each year. The firm would be required to detail in the report its supervision and compliance effort, including its options compliance program, during the preceding year and the adequacy of its ongoing compliance processes and procedures. 16 16 *See* proposed Amex Rules 922(g) and 922(h), which are modeled after NYSE Rules 342.30 and 354, respectively. Proposed Amex Rule 922(g) would further provide that a member organization that specifically includes its options compliance program in a report that complies with substantially similar NYSE and NASD rules will be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of Amex Rules 922(g) and 922(h). Where appropriate, the proposed rule changes would delete references to SROP and CROP in Amex Rules 421, 920, 921, 922, 924 and 991. Although the proposed rule change would eliminate entirely the positions and titles of SROP and CROP, firms would still be required to designate a single general partner or executive officer to assume overall authority and responsibility for internal supervision, control of the organization and compliance with securities laws and regulations. 17 A firm would also be required to designate specific qualified individuals as having supervisory or compliance responsibilities over each aspect of the firm's options activities and to set forth the names and titles of these individuals in its written supervisory procedures. 18 17 *See* proposed Amex Rule 922(a). 18 *See* proposed Amex Rule 922(a). The Exchange is a party to an options sales practice compliance plan, amended on March 26, 2007, entered into pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-2, promulgated thereunder. 19 For Exchange members that are also FINRA members, the amended plan allocates responsibility for examination and enforcement of members' compliance with options sales practice rules primarily to FINRA (the “Options 17d-2 Plan”). For non-FINRA members, the Options 17d-2 Plan provides that the exchange which is the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act, shall perform the regulatory responsibilities designated to it in the Options 17d-2 Plan. Under these provisions the Amex currently has responsibility for examination and enforcement of options sales practice rules as to three members (one of which is a dual member of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and Amex and two Amex only members). FINRA will be primarily responsible for options sales practice examination and enforcement as to other dual members. In connection with the approval of these proposed changes, the Exchange intends to closely review written supervisory and compliance procedures of firms, for which it is the DEA, in the course of its routine examinations of member firms to ensure that supervisory and compliance responsibilities are adequately defined. 19 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55532 (Mar. 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (Apr. 2, 2007). The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will increase accountability and eliminate impractical and unrealistic supervisory standards applicable solely to listed options. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are appropriate and will not materially alter the supervisory operations of firms. B. Supervisory Procedures and Internal Controls The Exchange also proposes to amend certain rules to strengthen member firms' supervisory procedures and internal controls relating to their public customer options business. The proposed rule changes discussed below are modeled after NYSE and NASD rules approved by the Commission in 2004. 20 The Exchange believes this proposal is appropriate and consistent with the proposal discussed above to integrate the responsibility for supervision of a member firm's public customer options business into its overall supervisory and compliance program. 20 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49882 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 35108 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2002-36) (approval order), 49883 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 35092 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NASD-2002-162) (approval order). The proposed revisions to Amex Rule 922(a)(3) would require member firms to develop and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to supervise sales managers and other supervisory personnel who service customer options accounts. 21 This would encompass branch office managers, sales managers, regional/district sales managers, or any person performing a similar supervisory function. Such policies and procedures are expected to encompass all options sales-related activities. Proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(i) would require that supervisory reviews of producing sales managers be conducted by a qualified ROP who is either senior to, or otherwise “independent of”, the producing manager under review. 22 This provision is intended to ensure that all options sales activity of a producing manager is monitored for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements by persons who do not have a personal interest in such activity. 21 Proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.19. 22 An “otherwise independent” person is defined in proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(i). Proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(ii) would provide an exception for firms so limited in size and resources that there is no qualified person senior to, or otherwise independent of, the producing manager to conduct the review. In this situation, the review would be conducted by a qualified ROP to the extent practicable. Under proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(iii), a member relying on the limited size and resources exception must document the factors used to determine that compliance with each of the “senior” or “otherwise independent” standards of proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(i) is not possible, and that the required supervisory systems and procedures in place with respect to any producing manager comply with the provisions of proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(i) to the extent practicable. 23 23 Proposed Amex Rule 922(a)(3)(iv) would provide that a member organization that complies with the NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to the requirements in Rules 922(a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) will be deemed to have met such requirements. Proposed Amex Rule 922(c)(i) would require member organizations to develop and maintain adequate controls over each of their business activities. The proposed rule would require such controls to include the establishment of procedures to independently verify and test the supervisory systems and procedures for those business activities. A firm would be required to include in the annual report prepared pursuant to proposed Amex Rule 922(g), a review of the firm's efforts in this regard, including a summary of the tests conducted and significant exceptions identified. The Exchange believes proposed Amex Rule 922(c)(i) would enhance the overall quality of each member organization's supervision and compliance function. 24 24 Proposed Amex Rule 922(c)(i) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.23. Paragraph (c)(ii) of proposed Amex Rule 922 would provide that a member organization that complies with NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to the requirements in paragraph (c)(i) of proposed Amex Rule 922 will be deemed to have met such requirements. Paragraph

(d)of proposed Amex Rule 922 would establish requirements for branch office inspections similar to the requirements of NYSE Rule 342.24. Specifically Amex Rule 922(d) would require a member organization to inspect, at least annually, each supervisory branch office and inspect each non-supervisory branch office at least once every three years. 25 The proposed rule would further require persons who conduct a firm's annual branch office inspection to be independent of the direct supervision or control of the branch office ( *i.e.* , not the branch office manager, or any person who directly or indirectly reports to such manager, or any person to whom such manager directly reports). The Exchange believes that requiring branch office inspections to be conducted by someone who has no significant financial interest in the success of a branch office should lead to more objective and vigorous inspections. 25 Proposed Amex Rules 922(d)(1)(i) and

(ii)would provide members with two exceptions from the annual supervisory branch office inspection requirement. Under proposed Amex Rule 922(e), any firm seeking an exemption, pursuant to Rule 922(d)(1)(ii), from the annual branch office inspection requirement would be required to submit to the Exchange written policies and procedures for systematic risk-based surveillance of its branch offices, as defined in Rule 922(e). Proposed Amex Rule 922(f) would require the annual branch office inspection programs to include, at a minimum, testing and verification of specified internal controls. 26 Proposed Amex Rule 922(d)(3) would provide that a firm that complies with the requirements of NASD or the NYSE that are substantially similar to the requirements of Rules 922(d),

(e)and

(f)will be deemed to have met such requirements. The Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary .04 of Amex Rule 922 to define “branch office” in a way that is substantially similar to the definition of branch office in NYSE Rule 342.10. 26 Proposed Rules 922(e) and

(f)are modeled after NYSE Rules 342.25 and 342.26, respectively. Proposed Amex Rule 922(g)(4) would require a firm to designate a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO). Proposed Rule 922(g)(5) would require each firm's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or equivalent, to certify annually that the member organization has in place processes to

(1)Establish and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Exchange rules and federal securities laws and regulations,

(2)modify such policies and procedures as business, regulatory, and legislative changes and events dictate, and

(3)test the effectiveness of such policies and procedures on a regular basis, the timing of which is reasonably designed to ensure continuing compliance with Exchange rules and federal securities laws and regulations. Proposed Amex Rule 922(g)(5) would also require the CEO to attest

(1)that he or she has conducted one or more meetings with the CCO in the preceding 12 months to discuss the compliance processes in proposed Rule 922(g)(5)(i),

(2)that he or she has consulted with the CCO and other officers to the extent necessary to attest to the statements in the certification, and

(3)that the compliance processes are evidenced in a report, reviewed by the CEO, CCO and such other officers as the member firm deems necessary to make the certification, that is provided to the member firm's board of directors and audit committee (if such committee exists). 27 27 Proposed Amex Rule 922(g)(5) is modeled after NASD Rule 3013 and NYSE Rule 342.30(e). Under proposed Amex Rule 922(b)(2), a member, upon a customer's written instructions, may hold mail for a customer who will not be at his or her usual address for no longer than two months if the customer is on vacation or traveling, or three months if the customer is going abroad. This provision would help ensure that members that hold mail for customers who are away from their usual addresses do so only pursuant to the customer's written instructions and for a specified, relatively short period of time. 28 28 Proposed Amex Rule 922(b)(2) is modeled after NASD Rule 3110(i). Proposed Amex Rule 922(b)(3) would require that before a customer options order is executed, the account name or designation to be placed upon the memorandum for each transaction. Only a Qualified Individual would be permitted to approve any changes in account names or designations. The ROP would be required to document the essential facts relied upon in approving the changes and maintain the record in an easily accessible place. A member would be required to preserve any documentation which provides for an account designation change for a period of not less than three years, with the documentation preserved for the first two years in an easily accessible place, as the term “easily accessible place” is used in Rule 17a-4 of the Act. 29 The Exchange believes the proposed rule would help to protect account name and designation information from possible fraudulent activity. 30 29 17 CFR 240.17a-4. 30 Proposed Amex Rule 922(b)(3) is modeled after NASD 3110(j). Amex Rule 924(d) allows firms to exercise time and price discretion on orders for the purchase or sale of a definite number of options contracts in a specified security. The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 924(d) to limit the duration of this discretionary authority to the day it is granted, absent written authorization to the contrary. The proposed rule would require any exercise of time and price discretion to be reflected on the customer order ticket. The proposed one-day limitation would not apply to time and price discretion exercised for orders effected with or for an institutional account (as defined in Rule 924(d)) pursuant to valid Good-Till-Cancelled instructions issued on a “not held” basis. The Exchange believes that investors will receive greater protection by clarifying the time such discretionary orders remain pending. 31 31 Proposed Amex Rule 924(d) is modeled after NASD Rule 2510(d)(1). III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 32 In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change, as amended, would integrate the supervision and compliance functions relating to member organizations' public customer options activities into the overall supervisory structure of a member organization, thereby eliminating any uncertainty over where supervisory responsibility lies. In addition, the proposed rule change would foster the strengthening of members' and member organizations' internal controls and supervisory systems. As such, the Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 33 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 32 In approving this rule change, as amended, 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). 33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No.1 to the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after its publication in the **Federal Register.** Amendment No. 1 corrects an internal cross-reference and does not contain any substantive modifications to the rule text. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to approve the proposed rule change as soon as possible to expedite its implementation. Accordingly, the Commission believes good cause exists, consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b) of the Act to approve Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. IV. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 1 Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-129 on the subject line. Paper comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-129. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-129 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 2008. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 34 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-129), as amended by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 35 35 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10019 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57760; File No. SR-BSE-2008-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Certificate of Incorporation of Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated May 1, 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 April 23, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by BSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The BSE proposes to amend its Certificate of Incorporation in order to make distributions to Exchange membership 3 owners under certain circumstances. Specifically, the amended Certificate of Incorporation will permit the Exchange to distribute the net proceeds from the Exchange's intended sale of its equity interests in the Boston Options Exchange Group LLC (“BOX”) to the Bourse de Montréal (“MX”) by means of a pro rata redemption of a portion of each Exchange membership. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ), at the principal offices of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 3 As that term is defined in Article I, Section 3(h), and Article IX of the BSE Constitution. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, BSE 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. BSE 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 On October 2, 2007, the Exchange announced that it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., (n/k/a The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.) (“NASDAQ OMX”) in a transaction that is subject to approval by the Exchange's members and by the Commission. The Exchange is being sold in its entirety to NASDAQ OMX, including all of its subsidiaries, with the exception of BOX. The sale will be structured as a merger of the Exchange with and into a wholly- owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX. The Exchange will be the surviving corporation and will become a wholly- owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX. Proposed rule changes, filed pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, relating to NASDAQ OMX's planned acquisition of the Exchange must be approved by the Commission in order for the transaction to close and are the subject of a separate filing. 4 The sale of the Exchange's equity interest in BOX to a third party is a condition precedent to completing the sale of the Exchange to NASDAQ OMX. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57757 (May 1, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-23). Currently, BOX is owned by the Exchange, MX, and several other investors. On December 21, 2007, the Exchange announced that it had reached an agreement with MX to sell the Exchange's remaining equity interest in BOX to MX. Upon closing of this transaction, which is also subject to approval by the Commission, the Exchange will no longer have an equity interest in BOX, and MX will have increased its ownership interest in BOX from 31.4% to 53.24%. 5 Exchange membership owners 6 will be compensated for their equity interest in BOX as would be provided in Article Fourth of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated (“Restated Certificate”). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57714 (April 25, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-25). 6 All holders of outstanding BSE memberships, including lessors but not lessees, and excluding electronic access members (“ *EAMs* ”), will be entitled to receive their pro rata share of the equity interest in BOX based on the outstanding number of such BSE memberships. After completing the sale of all of its equity interests in BOX, the Exchange will continue to act as the self-regulatory organization for the BOX facility, and the Exchange's wholly- owned subsidiary Boston Options Exchange Regulation, LLC (“BOXR”) will provide the regulatory framework for the BOX facility. BOXR, together with BOX, will continue to have regulatory responsibility for the activities of the BOX facility. In order for the Exchange to distribute the net proceeds from the BOX sale to the Exchange's membership owners, the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation must be amended in order to remove the existing provision that prevents the Exchange from making distributions to Exchange membership owners, and to add a provision that allows the Exchange to redeem a portion of each membership for a pro rata share of the net proceeds of the BOX sale. 7 The Exchange has been advised that the use of the redemption as a means to distribute proceeds from the sale of its equity interest in BOX may provide beneficial tax treatment. Therefore, the Restated Certificate would permit the Exchange to make distributions to membership owners, and also would permit the use of such pro rata redemption. The Restated Certificate also would delete obsolete text regarding the incorporators of the Exchange. 7 *See* Restated Certificate, Article Fourth. If approved by the Commission, the Restated Certificate would be effective immediately prior to the closing of the BOX distribution upon the filing of the Restated Certificate with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. It is anticipated that the Restated Certificate would be amended again upon the closing of NASDAQ OMX's planned acquisition of the Exchange. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that, if approved, the proposed rule change will provide a means for the Exchange to distribute the proceeds from the sale of the Exchange's equity interest in BOX to all of the Exchange's owners of memberships. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition BSE 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. 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-BSE-2008-02 on the subject line. Paper comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-02. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-BSE-2008-02 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 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. E8-10072 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57747; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-49] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Off-Floor LMMs April 30, 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 April 24, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) 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 proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE rules relating to Lead Market-Makers (“LMMs”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.org/Legal* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission. 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 those 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 parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Last year, CBOE amended its rules to provide Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPMs”) with the flexibility to operate remotely away from CBOE's trading floor as a so-called “Off-Floor DPM.” 5 CBOE is now proposing to provide LMMs with the same flexibility to operate remotely away from CBOE's trading floor. Specifically, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.15A, *Lead Market-Makers in Hybrid Classes,* to provide the following: 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55531 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15736 (April 2, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-94). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57568 (March 26, 2008), 73 FR 18016 (April 2, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-32) (immediately effective rule change expanding the Off-Floor DPM program, which had originally been limited to equity option classes to include all option classes traded on the Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform (collectively “Hybrid”)). • An LMM generally will operate on CBOE's trading floor (“On-Floor LMM”). However, an LMM can request that the Exchange authorize the LMM to function remotely away from CBOE's trading floor (“Off-Floor LMM”) on a class-by-class basis. • An LMM can request that the Exchange authorize it to operate as an Off-Floor LMM in one or more Hybrid classes. The Exchange will consider the factors specified in Rule 8.15A(a)(i)(A), 6 as well as the factors applicable to Off-Floor DPMs specified in paragraph

(g)of Rule 8.83, *Approval to Act as a DPM,* 7 in determining whether to permit an LMM to operate as an Off-Floor LMM. If an LMM is approved to operate as an Off-Floor LMM in one or more Hybrid classes, the Off-Floor LMM can have an LMM designee trade in open outcry in the option classes allocated to the Off-Floor LMM, but the Off-Floor LMM shall not receive a participation entitlement under Rule 8.15B, *Participation Entitlement of LMMs,* with respect to orders represented in open outcry. 8 6 CBOE Rule 8.15A(a)(i) provides that the factors to be considered in selecting LMMs include: Adequacy of capital; experience in trading index options or options on ETFs; presence in the trading crowd; adherence to CBOE Rules; and ability to meet the obligations specified in the Rule. An individual may be appointed as an LMM for one expiration month at a time. When individual members are associated with one or more other members, only one member may receive an LMM appointment. 7 CBOE Rule 8.83(g) provides that the factors to be considered in determining whether to permit a DPM to operate as an Off-Floor DPM include, but are not limited to, any one or more of the following:

(i)*Adequacy* of capital;

(ii)operational capacity;

(iii)trading experience of and observance of generally accepted standards of conduct by the applicant, its associated persons, and the DPM Designees who will represent the applicant in its capacity as a DPM;

(iv)number and experience of support personnel of the applicant who will be performing functions related to the applicant's DPM business;

(v)regulatory history of and history of adherence to CBOE Rules by the applicant, its associated persons, and the DPM Designees who will represent the applicant in its capacity as a DPM;

(vi)willingness and ability of the applicant to promote the Exchange as a marketplace;

(vii)performance evaluations conducted pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.60, *Evaluation of Trading Crowd Performance;* and

(viii)in the event that one or more shareholders, directors, officers, partners, managers, members, DPM Designees, or other principals of an applicant is or has previously been a shareholder, director, officer, partner, manager, member, DPM Designee, or other principal in another DPM, adherence by such DPM to the requirements set forth in Section C of Chapter VIII of the CBOE Rules respecting DPM responsibilities and obligations during the time period in which such person(s) held such position(s) with the DPM. 8 In addition to the changes to CBOE Rule 8.15A, CBOE is proposing related updates to paragraph

(b)of CBOE Rule 8.15B, *Participation Entitlement of LMMs,* and subparagraphs (d)(v) and

(vii)of CBOE Rule 6.74, *Crossing Orders.* • An LMM that is approved to operate as an Off-Floor LMM in one or more Hybrid classes can request that the Exchange authorize it to operate as an On-Floor LMM in those option classes. In making a determination pursuant to this paragraph, the Exchange should evaluate whether the change is in the best interests of the Exchange, and may consider any information that it believes will be of assistance to it. Factors to be considered may include, but are not limited to, performance, operational capacity of the Exchange or LMM, efficiency, number and experience of personnel of the LMM who will be performing functions related to the trading of the applicable securities, number of securities involved, number of Market-Makers affected, and trading volume of the securities. 9 9 These proposed On-/Off-Floor LMM provisions are substantially similar to the corresponding provisions for On-/Off-Floor DPMs in paragraphs

(g)and .01 to CBOE Rule 8.83. • In addition, CBOE is proposing to include a requirement that, as part of a pilot program until March 14, 2009, an Off-Floor LMM not allow more than one Market-Maker affiliated with the Off-Floor LMM to trade on CBOE's trading floor in any specific option class allocated to the Off-Floor LMM and provided such Market-Maker is trading on a separate membership (absent the pilot program, an Off-Floor LMM may not allow any Market-Makers affiliated with the Off-Floor LMM to trade on CBOE's trading floor in any class allocated to the Off-Floor LMM) and provided the Off-Floor LMM does not have an LMM designee trading in open outcry in the option classes allocated to the Off-Floor LMM. 10 10 This provision is substantially similar to an existing provision in CBOE's rules respecting Off-Floor DPM obligations. *See* paragraph (a)(v) of CBOE Rule 8.85, *DPM Obligations.* CBOE is proposing a related cross-reference update to paragraph (c)(vii)(1) of CBOE Rule 8.3. Lastly, CBOE is proposing to update the LMM obligations listed in Rule 8.15A to include a requirement that, subject to paragraph

(d)of Rule 54.7, *General Prohibitions* (under the CBOE Stock Exchange Rules), LMMs in Hybrid classes (whether On-Floor or Off-Floor) maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes allocated to the LMM or act as specialist or Market-Maker in any security underlying options allocated to the LMM, and otherwise comply with the requirements of Rule 4.18, *Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Non-Public Information.* 11 11 This language is substantially similar to existing language in CBOE's rules respecting e-DPM obligations. *See* paragraph

(x)of CBOE Rule 8.93, *e-DPM Obligations.* In addition, the Exchange is proposing to modify CBOE Rule 8.15A to make clear that the rule applies to Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform option classes. By permitting an LMM to function as an Off-Floor LMM, CBOE believes that the rule change provides more flexibility to a member organization that may wish to function remotely, and provides more flexibility to CBOE when allocating option classes to the best applicant. It also removes a potential operational dilemma for a Market-Maker that functions as a DPM in some classes and an LMM in others, but that would like to function remotely away from the trading floor as a DPM/LMM in all of its option classes. Accordingly, CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 12 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act 13 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule does not

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

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(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 the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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, 7 the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 CBOE fulfilled this requirement. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act, 10 the proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, so that the proposal may take effect on May 1, 2008. Lowering the appointment cost on SPX options will allow Market-Makers who have an appointment in SPX additional options classes in which they could act as Market-Makers. Thus, the Exchange believes that waiving the 30-day operative period will promote competition and efficiency without undue delay. The Commission agrees and, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may take effect on May 1, 2008. 11 IV. Solicitation of Comments 10 *Id.* 11 For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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-2008-51 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-2008-51. 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 the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-51 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10039 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57758; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-44] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Equity Linked Term Notes May 1, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. On April 30, 2008, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons, and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 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 CBOE Rule 31.5(I), which provides the requirements for the listing and trading of Equity Linked Term Notes (“ELTNs”) on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the principal office of the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 III below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Rule 19b-4(e) 3 under the Act provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, 4 if the Commission has approved, pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, 5 the self-regulatory organization's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the self-regulatory organization has a surveillance program for the product class. The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 31.5(I), which sets forth CBOE's listing standards for ELTNs, to clarify that the listing and trading of ELTNs on CBOE, including the trading of ELTNs on CBOE pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 2. Statutory Basis Because this proposal clarifies that the listing and trading of ELTNs on the Exchange is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, 6 the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 8 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-44 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-2008-44. 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-CBOE-2008-44 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 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. 9 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 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). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal seeks to clarify that the Exchange's listing and trading of ELTNs is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that the Exchange's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues. The Commission believes that accelerating approval of this proposal would ensure that the Exchange's rules clearly reflect the standards for listing and trading of ELTNs and conform the rules to those of other Exchanges without undue delay. 11 11 *See e.g.,* International Securities Exchange Rule 2130 and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-CBOE-2008-44), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10071 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57750, File No. SR-MSRB-2007-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Rule G-8, Books and Records, Rule G-9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements, To Improve Transaction Reporting of New Issues May 1, 2008. On November 27, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change consisting of an amendment of its Rule G-8, Books and Records, Rule G-9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2008. 3 The Commission received two comment letters about the proposed rule change. 4 The MSRB also forwarded to the Commission a comment letter about the proposed rule change received by the MSRB. 5 On April 22, 2008, the MSRB filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57131 (January 11, 2008), 73 FR 3295 (January 17, 2008) (“Commission's Notice”). 4 *See* letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), dated March 28, 2008, and letter from Mary Lee Corrigan, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer and Janis C. Brennan, Vice President & Operations Manager, Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, Inc. (“GKST”), dated April 3, 2008. 5 *See* letter from Michael Decker and Michael Nicholas, Co-Chief Executive Officers, Regional Bond Dealers Association (“RBDA”), dated April 1, 2008. 6 In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB responded to the three comment letters and, in response to the comment letters, postponed the effective date of the proposed rule change from June 30, 2008 to September 30, 2008. This is a technical amendment and is not subject to notice and comment. The proposed rule change is designed to improve transaction reporting of new issues and would accelerate the timing for CUSIP number assignment and, with the exception of new issues of short-term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity, require underwriters to:

(i)Submit certain information about a new issue of municipal securities to Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's New Issue Information Dissemination System (“NIIDS”) within set timeframes; and

(ii)set and disseminate a “Time of First Execution” that allows time for market participants to access necessary information in preparation for trade reporting prior to beginning trade executions in the issue. A full description of the proposal is contained in the Commission's Notice. SIFMA stated in its comment letter that it fully supports increased price transparency in the municipal marketplace and strongly supports the development of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's New Issue Information Dissemination System. However, SIFMA recommended that the proposal not be effective on June 30, 2008 because firms have not had sufficient time to review and test the system and because current unexpected market issues and issuance volume related to auction-rate securities have significantly increased the time demands on the operations staff at the various firms. GKST also supported increased price transparency and the proposal but believed that if the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation cannot fix the problems that have already been identified, the cost of complying with the proposed directive will be a severe burden to all firms but relatively more so to smaller firms. The RBDA also supported the development and implementation of the New Issue Information Dissemination System as a way to enhance the overall level of transparency in the municipal market, but did not believe the June 30 deadline offered the market enough time to fully test and implement the system. All three commentators suggested postponing the originally-proposed June 30, 2008 implementation date. In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB postponed the effective date of the proposed rule change from June 30, 2008 to September 30, 2008. The MSRB believes that the new effective date will address commentators concerns and will allow for the additional time necessary for implementation of NIIDS. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB 7 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 8 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among other things, that the MSRB's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency. The proposal will be effective on September 30, 2008, as requested by the MSRB. 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). 9 *Id* . *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2007-08), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-10024 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57746; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Rule 36 (Communication Between Exchange and Exchange Members' Offices) April 30, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 29, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange seeks to extend its current portable phone pilot (the “Pilot”) operating pursuant to Exchange Rule 36 from its scheduled April 30, 2008 expiration date to no later than the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20 5 or June 30, 2008, the earlier thereof. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57611 (April 3, 2008), 73 FR 19274 (April 9, 2008). The comment period expires on April 30, 2008. 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 seeks to extend the Pilot operating pursuant to Exchange Rule 36 from the Pilot's scheduled April 30, 2008 expiration date to no later than the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20 or June 30, 2008, the earlier thereof. Pursuant to the Pilot, Floor brokers and Registered Competitive Market Makers (“RCMMs”) are permitted to use an Exchange authorized and provided portable telephone on the Exchange Floor provided certain conditions are met. Such usage has been permitted on a pilot basis. The current Pilot expires on April 30, 2008. Through the rule filing SR-NYSE-2008-20, the Exchange seeks to have the amendment to Exchange Rule 36 made permanent. Exchange filing SR-NYSE-2008-20 was noticed for comment in the **Federal Register** by the Commission on April 9, 2008. The comment period ends on April 30, 2008. In order to avoid a lapse of the operation of the Pilot pending the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20 by the Commission, the Exchange proposes in the instant filing to extend the operation of the Pilot either for an additional two months until June 30, 2008, or until the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20, whichever occurs first. Background The Commission originally approved the Pilot to be implemented for a six-month period 6 beginning no later than June 23, 2003. 7 Since the inception of the Pilot, the Exchange has extended the Pilot nine times, with the current Pilot expiring on April 30, 2008. 8 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47671 (April 11, 2003), 68 FR 19048 (April 17, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-11). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47992 (June 5, 2003), 68 FR 35047 (June 11, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-19) (delaying the implementation date for portable phones from on or about May 1, 2003, to no later than June 23, 2003). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48919 (December 12, 2003), 68 FR 70853 (December 19, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-38) (extending the Pilot for an additional six months ending on June 16, 2004); 49954 (July 1, 2004), 69 FR 41323 (July 8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-30) (extending the Pilot for an additional five months ending on November 30, 2004); 50777 (December 1, 2004), 69 FR 71090 (December 8, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-67) (extending the Pilot for an additional four months ending March 31, 2005); 51464 (March 31, 2005), 70 FR 17746 (April 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-20) (extending the Pilot for additional four months ending July 31, 2005); 52188 (August 1, 2005), 70 FR 46252 (August 9, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-53) (extending the Pilot for an additional six months ending January 31, 2006); 53277 (February 13, 2006), 71 FR 8877 (February 21, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-03) (extending the Pilot for an additional six months ending July 31, 2006); 54276 (August 4, 2006), 71 FR 45885 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-55) (extending the Pilot for an additional six months ending January 31, 2007); 55218 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR 6025 (February 8, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-05) (extending the Pilot for an additional twelve months ending January 31, 2008); and 57249 (January 31, 2008), 73 FR 7024 (February 6, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-10) (extending the Pilot for an additional three months ending April 30, 2008). Also, the Exchange has incorporated RCMMs into the Pilot and subsequently amended the Pilot to allow RCMMs to use an Exchange authorized and provided portable telephone on the Exchange Floor to call to and receive calls from their upstairs offices, the upstairs offices of their clearing firm, and their booth locations on the NYSE Floor. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53213 (February 2, 2006), 71 FR 7103 (February 10, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-80) and 54215 (July 26, 2006), 71 FR 43551 (August 1, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-51). Exchange Rule 36 governs the establishment of telephone or electronic communications between the Exchange's Trading Floor and any other location. Prior to the Pilot, Exchange Rule 36 prohibited the use of portable telephone communication between the Trading Floor and any off-Floor location. During the operation of the Pilot, Floor brokers and RCMMs may use Exchange authorized and issued portable telephones on the Floor. Floor brokers are permitted to engage in direct voice communication from the point of sale to an off-Floor location, such as a member firm's trading desk or the office of one of the broker's customers. Such communications permit the broker to accept orders consistent with Exchange rules governing the entry of orders on the NYSE Floor, provide status and oral execution reports as to orders previously received, as well as “market look” observations as have historically been routinely transmitted from a broker's booth location. Both incoming and outgoing calls are allowed, provided the requirements of all other Exchange rules have been met. A Floor broker is not permitted to represent and execute any order received as a result of such voice communication unless the order is first properly recorded by the member and entered into the Exchange's Front End Systemic Capture (“FESC”) electronic database (Exchange Rule 123(e)). 9 In addition, Exchange rules require that any Floor broker receiving orders from the public over portable phones must be properly qualified to engage in such direct access business under Exchange Rules 342 and 345, among others. 10 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43689 (December 7, 2000), 65 FR 79145 (December 18, 2000) (SR-NYSE-98-25). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44943 (October 16, 2001), 66 FR 53820 (October 24, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-39) (discussing certain exceptions to FESC, such as orders to offset an error, or a bona fide arbitrage, which may be entered within 60 seconds after a trade is executed). 10 For more information regarding Exchange requirements for conducting a public business on the Exchange Floor, *see* Information Memos 01-41 (November 21, 2001), 01-18 (July 11, 2001) (available at *http://www.nyse.com/regulation/* ) and 91-25 (July 8, 1991). The Pilot also allows RCMMs to use an Exchange authorized portable phone solely to call and receive calls from their booths on the Floor, to communicate with their or their member organizations' off-Floor office, and to communicate with the off-Floor office of their clearing member organization to enter off-Floor orders and to discuss matters related to the clearance and settlement of transactions, provided the off-Floor office uses a wired telephone line for these discussions. RCMMs, who trade for their own accounts on the Floor subject to the requirements of NYSE Rule 107A, are currently not allowed to use a portable phone to conduct any agency business. 11 For both RCMMs and Floor brokers, use of a portable telephone on the Exchange Floor other than one authorized and issued by the Exchange is prohibited. Specialists are subject to separate restrictions in Exchange Rule 36 on their ability to engage in voice communications from the specialist post to an off-Floor location. 12 The Pilot does not apply to specialists, who would continue to be prohibited from speaking from the post to upstairs trading desks or customers. 13 11 Allowing RCMMs acting as Floor brokers to use portable phones would involve further discussions with the Commission and would be the subject of a separate filing with the Commission. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46560 (September 26, 2002), 67 FR 62088 (October 3, 2002) (SR-NYSE-00-31) (discussing restrictions on specialists' communications from the post). 13 Exchange Rule 36.30 provides that, with the approval of the Exchange, a specialist unit may maintain a telephone line at its stock trading post location to the off-Floor offices of the specialist unit or the unit's clearing firm. Such telephone connection shall not be used for the purpose of transmitting to the Floor orders for the purchase or sale of securities, but may be used to enter options or futures hedging orders through the unit's off-Floor office or the unit's clearing firm, or through a member (on the Floor) of an options or futures exchange. The Exchange believes that the Pilot is operating successfully in that there is a reasonable degree of usage of portable phones. During the period of January 31, 2008 through April 29, 2008, there have been no significant regulatory concerns identified with their usage. 14 Moreover, there have been no administrative or technical problems, other than routine telephone maintenance issues, that have resulted from the operation of the Pilot over the past few months. 14 The Exchange has received records of incoming and outgoing telephone calls from January 31, 2008, through March 31, 2008, for Floor brokers and RCMMs and will continue to receive records of such telephone calls on a monthly basis. Conclusion The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of the current Pilot for an additional two months to June 30, 2008 or until the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20. The Exchange believes that the approval of the Pilot's continuation for the earlier of an additional two months or until the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20 will enable the Exchange to continue to provide more direct, efficient access to its trading crowds and customers, increase the speed of order transmittal and trade execution, and provide an enhanced level of service to customers in an increasingly competitive environment. Therefore the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the Pilot to expire no later than the approval of the pending filing to make the amendment to Exchange Rule 36 permanent or to June 30, 2008. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with, and furthers the objectives of, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 15 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 15 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 No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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 the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 17 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. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing period and 30-day operative period under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 18 The Commission has waived the five-day pre-filing requirement for this proposed rule change. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the continuation of the Pilot is in the public interest as it will avoid inconvenience and interruption to the public. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay and make this proposed rule change immediately effective upon filing. 19 The Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the Exchange to continue, without interruption, the existing operation of its Pilot until the earlier of the approval of SR-NYSE-2008-20 or June 30, 2008. 18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 19 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Electronic comments:* • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2008-34 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-2008-34. 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-NYSE-2008-34 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-9995 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57751; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-29] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the Eligibility Criteria for Components of an Index Underlying Investment Company Units May 1, 2008. I. Introduction On March 13, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) to modify the eligibility criteria for components of an index underlying Investment Company Units (“Units”). 3 On March 24, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2008. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Units are securities that represent an interest in a registered investment company that could be organized as a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment company, or a similar entity, that holds securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of securities or securities in another registered investment company that holds securities. *See* NYSE Arca Equities 5.2(j)(3). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57561 (March 26, 2008), 73 FR 17390. II. Description of the Proposal Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides that NYSE Arca Equities may approve a series of Units for listing and trading (including trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges) pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, 5 if such series satisfies the criteria set forth in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange proposes to exclude Units and certain other securities defined in Section 2 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8 (collectively, “Derivative Securities Products”) 6 when applying the quantitative listing requirements of Commentaries .01(a)(A) and

(B)to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) relating to the listing of Units based on a U.S. index or portfolio or an international or global index or portfolio, respectively. 5 Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) under the Act (17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1)), if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 6 The following securities are included in Section 2 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8: Portfolio Depositary Receipts (Rule 8.100); Trust Issued Receipts (Rule 8.200); Commodity-Based Trust Shares (Rule 8.201); Currency Trust Shares (Rule 8.202); Commodity Index Trust Shares (Rule 8.203); Partnership Units (Rule 8.300); Paired Trust Shares (Rule 8.400); and Managed Fund Shares (Rule 8.600). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57619 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19544 (April 10, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-25) (approving, among other things, the adoption of listing standards for Managed Fund Shares). With respect to Commentary .01(a)(A) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products, as components, when applying the following existing component eligibility requirements:

(1)Component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million (Commentary .01(a)(A)(1));

(2)component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares (Commentary .01(a)(A)(2)); and

(3)the most heavily weighted component stock must not exceed 30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks must not exceed 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio (Commentary .01(a)(A)(3)). Component stocks, in the aggregate, excluding Derivative Securities Products, would still be required to meet the criteria of these provisions. Thus, for example, when determining compliance with Commentaries .01(a)(A)(1) and

(2)to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the remaining index weight, after excluding any Derivative Securities Products, would be required to have a minimum market value of at least $75 million and minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares during each of the last six months, respectively. In addition, with respect to Commentary .01(a)(A)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), when determining the component weight for the most heavily weighted stock and the five most heavily weighted component stocks for an underlying index that includes a Derivative Securities Product, the weight of such Derivative Securities Product included in the underlying index or portfolio would not be considered. In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the requirement in Commentary .01(a)(A)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), which requires that the underlying index or portfolio include a minimum of 13 component stocks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if:

(1)One or more series of Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100) constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Units; or

(2)one or more series of Derivative Securities Products account for 100% of the weight of the index or portfolio. Thus, for example, if the index or portfolio underlying a series of Units includes one or more series of Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts, or if it consists entirely of other Derivative Securities Products, then there would not be required to be any minimum number of component stocks ( *i.e.* , one or more components comprising the underlying index or portfolio would be acceptable). However, if the index or portfolio consists of Derivative Securities Products, other than Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts, and other securities that are not Derivative Securities Products ( *e.g.* , common stocks), then there would have to be at least 13 components in the underlying index or portfolio. Consistent with current Commentary .01(a)(A)(5) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), all securities in the index or portfolio (including Derivative Securities Products) must nevertheless be U.S. Component Stocks 7 that are listed on a national securities exchange and NMS Stocks, as defined in Rule 600 under the Act. 8 7 “U.S. Component Stock” means an equity security that is registered under Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) of the Act or an American Depositary Receipt, the underlying equity security of which is registered under Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) of the Act. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 8 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). With respect to Commentary .01(a)(B) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products, as components, when applying the following existing component eligibility requirements:

(1)Component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum market value of at least $100 million (Commentary .01(a)(B)(1));

(2)component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum worldwide monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares (Commentary .01(a)(B)(2)); and

(3)the most heavily weighted component stock must not exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks must not exceed 60% of the weight of the index or portfolio (Commentary .01(a)(B)(3)). Thus, for example, when determining compliance with Commentaries .01(a)(B)(1) and

(2)to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), component stocks that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the remaining index weight, after excluding any Derivative Securities Products, would be required to have a minimum market value of at least $100 million and minimum worldwide monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares during each of the last six months, respectively. In addition, with respect to Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), when determining the component weight for the most heavily weighted stock and the five most heavily weighted component stocks for an underlying index that includes a Derivative Securities Product, the weight of such Derivative Securities Product included in the underlying index or portfolio would not be considered. In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the requirement in Commentary .01(a)(B)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities 5.2(j)(3), which requires that the underlying index or portfolio include a minimum of 20 component stocks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if:

(1)One or more series of Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100) constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Units, or

(2)one or more series of Derivative Securities Products account for 100% of the weight of the index or portfolio. Thus, for example, if the index or portfolio underlying a series of Units includes one or more series of Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts, or if it consists entirely of other Derivative Securities Products, then there would not be required to be any minimum number of component stocks ( *i.e.* , one or more components comprising the underlying index or portfolio would be acceptable). However, if the index or portfolio consists of Derivative Securities Products, other than Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts, and other securities that are not Derivative Securities Products ( *e.g.* , common stocks), then there would have to be at least 20 components in the underlying index or portfolio. Consistent with current Commentary .01(a)(B)(5) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), each component that is a U.S. Component Stock (including Derivative Securities Products) would be required to be listed on a national securities exchange and be an NMS Stock, as defined in Rule 600 under the Act, 9 and each component that is a Non-U.S. Component Stock 10 (including Derivative Securities Products) would be required to be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. 9 *See Id* . 10 “Non U.S. Component Stock” means an equity security that is not registered under Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) of the Act and that is issued by an entity that

(a)is not organized, domiciled, or incorporated in the United States, and

(b)is an operating company (including real estate investment trusts and income trusts, but excluding investment trusts, unit trusts, mutual funds, and derivatives). *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 11 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 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. 11 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), one or more series of Derivative Securities Products may be included as a component comprising the index or portfolio underlying a series of Units. 13 The Commission notes that, based on the trading characteristics of Derivative Securities Products, it may be difficult for component Derivative Securities Products to satisfy certain quantitative index criteria, such as the minimum market value and trading volume limitations. However, because Derivative Securities Products are themselves subject to specific initial and continued listing requirements, the Commission believes that it would be reasonable to exclude Derivative Securities Products, as components, from certain index component eligibility criteria for Units. For example, the index component eligibility standards for Units and Portfolio Depositary Receipts require, among others, that there be a minimum of 13 component stocks in an underlying U.S. index or portfolio and a minimum of 20 component stocks in an international or global index or portfolio. If one or more series of Units or Portfolio Depositary Receipts constitutes, at least in part, a component of a U.S. or international index or portfolio underlying a series of Units, the Commission believes that not requiring a minimum number of components underlying such overlying Unit would be reasonable because each component Unit or Portfolio Depositary Receipt already requires a minimum of 13 or 20 component stocks, as the case may be. In addition, if one or more series of component Derivative Securities Products accounts for 100% of the weight of the index or portfolio underlying a series of Units, then a minimum number of components underlying such Units would not be required. The Commission notes that, if a series of Units is based on the performance of an underlying index or portfolio composed, in part, of a:

(1)Unit or Portfolio Depositary Receipt and another non-Derivative Securities Product ( *e.g.* , common stock), or

(2)Derivative Securities Product other than a Unit or Portfolio Depositary Receipt, then the minimum number of component stock requirement will continue to apply. 13 Under Commentary .01(a) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), a series of a Derivative Securities Product may be included as a U.S. Component Stock or Non-U.S. Component Stock underlying a series of Units, so long as the shares of such series meet the definitions of U.S. Component Stock and Non-U.S. Component Stock, as applicable. *See supra* notes 7 and 10. *See also* Commentaries .01(a)(A)(5) and 01(a)(B)(5) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) (requiring that, in any event, all securities in the applicable index or portfolio must be a U.S. Component Stock listed on a national securities exchange and an NMS Stock, as defined in Rule 600 under the Act, or, in the case of an international or global index or portfolio, must be a Non-U.S. Component Stock that is listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting). In addition, because component Derivative Securities Products may comprise 100% of the weight of any index underlying a series of Units, the Commission believes that providing for an exception to the concentration limits contained in Commentaries .01(a)(A)(3) and .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) with respect to component Derivative Securities Products is reasonable. 14 The Commission further notes that component Derivative Securities Products that are U.S. Component Stocks comprising, at least in part, an index or portfolio underlying a series of Units must meet the definition of NMS Stock 15 and already have been listed and trading on a national securities exchange pursuant to a proposed rule change approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 16 or submitted by a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 17 or would have been listed by a national securities exchange pursuant to the requirements of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 18 Component Derivative Securities Products that are Non-U.S. Component Stocks comprising, at least in part, an international or global index or portfolio underlying a series of Units must already have been listed and trading on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. 14 The Commission notes that it has approved the adoption of certain amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) allowing an index or portfolio underlying a series of Equity Index-Linked Securities to consist, in whole or in part, of

(1)securities of closed-end management investment companies, or

(2)Units, which, in each case, are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56879 (December 3, 2007), 72 FR 69271 (December 7, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-110). 15 *See supra* note 8. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 18 *See supra* note 5. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. In addition, the listing and trading criteria set forth in the proposal are intended to protect investors and the public interest. As such, the Commission believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to modify the index component eligibility criteria for Units in the manner described in the proposal. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 19 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-29), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved. 19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10025 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of: Health Professionals, Inc., Respondent; Order of Suspension of Trading May 5, 2008. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Health Professionals, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 1997. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of Health Professionals, Inc. is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 5, 2008 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 16, 2008. By the Commission. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1235 Filed 5-5-08; 11:37am]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents

U.S. Code