Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 20973-20975 [E8-8182]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
certification application may request an
exemption from one or more elements of
the requested design certification, as
provided in § 52.63(b) and Section VIII
of each appendix to 10 CFR Part 52 that
certifies a design. As set forth in those
provisions, such a request is subject to
litigation in the same manner as other
issues in a COL proceeding. Since the
underlying element of the design may
change after the exemption request is
submitted, such an exemption may
ultimately become unnecessary or may
need to be reconsidered or conformed to
the final design certification rule. Such
matters would be considered by an
application-specific licensing board. A
licensing board considering a COL
application referencing a design
certification application might conclude
the proceeding and determine that the
COL application is otherwise acceptable
before the design certification rule
becomes final. In such circumstances,
the license may not issue until the
design certification rule is final, unless
the applicant requests that the entire
application be treated as a ‘‘custom’’
design.
COL applicants should coordinate
with vendors applying for certified
designs to ensure that decisions on
design certification applications do not
impede decisions on COL applications.
If design certification is delayed, a
licensing board considering common
technical issues may likewise be
delayed.
3. Subsequent Applications Referencing
a Design Certification Rule
If the Commission grants initial COL
applications referencing a particular
design certification rule, the
Commission believes it likely that
subsequent COL applicants will also
reference that design certification rule.
In this event, the Commission would
expect to develop additional processes
to facilitate coordination of proceedings
on such applications. We observe,
however, that an issue associated with
such matters as operational programs or
design acceptance criteria may be
resolved through the design-centered
review approach for initial applications
containing common information, but we
do not intend to impose any resolution
so obtained on subsequent COL
applicants. While there is no
requirement to adopt a previouslyapproved resolution of an issue, and
subsequent applicants are free to use the
most recent state-of-the-art methods to
resolve such issues, we nevertheless
urge such applicants to consider
adopting previous resolutions in order
to maximize plant standardization. If a
COL applicant adopts an approach to a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Apr 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
technical issue previously found
acceptable, no further staff review of the
adequacy of the approach is necessary.
Rather, the staff review should be
limited to verification that the applicant
has indeed adopted the previously
approved approach and will properly
implement it, and, for technical issues
that depend on site-specific factors, that
the previously-approved approach
applies to the applicant’s proposed
facility.
C. ITAAC
In first promulgating 10 CFR Part 52
in 1989, we determined that hearings on
whether the acceptance criteria in a
COL have been met (ITAAC-compliance
hearings) would be held in accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) provisions applicable to
determining applications for initial
licenses, but that we would specify the
procedures to be followed in the Notice
of Hearing. See 10 CFR 52.103(b)(2)(i)
(1990); 54 FR 15395 (April 18, 1989). In
enacting the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Congress subsequently confirmed our
authority to adopt 10 CFR Part 52, and
by statute accorded us additional
discretion to determine procedures,
whether formal or informal, for ITAACcompliance hearings. See Atomic
Energy Act section 189a.(1)(B)(iv), 42
U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)(B)(iv). We therefore
amended § 52.103(d) to provide that we
would determine, in our discretion,
‘‘appropriate hearing procedures,
whether informal or formal
adjudicatory, for any hearing under
[§ 52.103(a)].’’
While we recognize that specification
of procedures for the treatment of
requests for hearings on ITAAC would
lend some predictability to the ITAAC
compliance process, we are not yet in a
position to specify such procedures,
since we have not approved even one
complete set of ITAAC necessary for
issuing a COL. Further, ITAACcompliance hearings are likely several
years distant, and we have no
experience with the type and number of
hearing requests that we might receive
with respect to ITAAC compliance.
While it may not be necessary to
consider the first requests for ITAACcompliance hearings in order for us to
determine the procedures appropriate to
govern such hearings, we believe it
premature to specify such procedures
now. In addition, the staff is now
formulating guidance on the times
necessary for the staff to consider
different categories of completed
ITAAC, and this guidance should assist
licensees in scheduling and performing
ITAAC so as to minimize the critical
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20973
path for staff consideration of completed
ITAAC.
In view of the above considerations,
we have identified one measure to lend
predictability to the ITAAC compliance
process: The Commission itself will
serve as the presiding officer with
respect to any request for a hearing filed
under § 52.103. In acting as the
presiding officer under these
circumstances, we will make three
initial determinations. First, we will
decide whether the person requesting
the hearing has shown, prima facie, that
one or more of the acceptance criteria in
the COL have not been, or will not be
met, and the attendant public health
and safety consequences of such nonconformance that would be contrary to
providing reasonable assurance of
adequate protection of the public health
and safety. Second, if we decide to grant
a request for a hearing on ITAAC
compliance, we will decide, pursuant to
§ 52.103(c), whether there will be
reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of the public health and
safety during a period of interim
operation. Third, we will designate the
procedures under which the proceeding
shall be conducted. We have amended
§ 52.103 and our Rules of Practice (10
CFR 2.309, 2.310, and 2.341) to
incorporate these changes.
III. Conclusion
The Commission reiterates its longstanding commitment to ensuring that
hearings are fair and produce an
adequate record for decision, while at
the same time being completed as
expeditiously as possible. The
Commission intends to monitor its
proceedings to ensure that they are
being concluded in a fair and timely
fashion. To this end, the Commission
will act in individual proceedings, as
appropriate, to provide guidance to
licensing boards and parties, and to
decide issues in the interest of a prompt
and effective resolution of the matters
set for adjudication.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of April 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–8272 Filed 4–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon written request, Copies available
from: U.S. Securities and Exchange
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
20974
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Notices
Commission, Office of Investor
Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549–0213.
sroberts on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Extension:
Rule 15g–2; SEC File No. 270–381; OMB
Control No. 3235–0434.
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’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
The ‘‘Penny Stock Disclosure Rules’’
(Rule 15g–2, 17 CFR 240.15g–2) require
broker-dealers to provide their
customers with a risk disclosure
document, as set forth in Schedule 15G,
prior to their first non-exempt
transaction in a ‘‘penny stock.’’ As
amended, the rule requires brokerdealers to obtain written
acknowledgement from the customer
that he or she has received the required
risk disclosure document. The amended
rule also requires broker-dealers to
maintain a copy of the customer’s
written acknowledgement for at least
three years following the date on which
the risk disclosure document was
provided to the customer, the first two
years in an accessible place.
The risk disclosure documents are for
the benefit of the customers, to assure
that they are aware of the risks of
trading in ‘‘penny stocks’’ before they
enter into a transaction. The risk
disclosure documents are maintained by
the broker-dealers and may be reviewed
during the course of an examination by
the Commission.
The Commission estimates that there
are approximately 240 broker-dealers
that could potentially be subject to
current Rule 15g–2, and that each one
of these firms processes an average of
three new customers for penny stocks
per week. Thus, each respondent
processes approximately 156 penny
stock disclosure documents per year. If
communications in tangible form alone
are used to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 15g–2, then (a) the copying and
mailing of the penny stock disclosure
document takes no more than two
minutes per customer, and (b) each
customer takes no more than eight
minutes to review, sign and return the
penny stock disclosure document. Thus,
the total existing respondent burden is
approximately 10 minutes per response,
or an aggregate total of 1,560 minutes
per respondent. Since there are 240
respondents, the current annual burden
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Apr 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
is 374,400 minutes (1,560 minutes per
each of the 240 respondents) or 6,240
hours. In addition, broker-dealers incur
a recordkeeping burden of
approximately two minutes per
response. Since there are approximately
156 responses for each respondent, the
respondents incur an aggregate
recordkeeping burden of 74,880 minutes
(240 respondents × 156 responses for
each × 2 minutes per response) or 1,248
hours, under Rule 15g–2. Accordingly,
the current aggregate annual hour
burden associated with Rule 15g–2 (that
is, assuming that all respondents
provide tangible copies of the required
documents) is approximately 7,488
hours (6,240 response hours + 1,248
recordkeeping hours).
The burden hours associated with
Rule 15g–2 may be slightly reduced
when the penny stock disclosure
document required under the rule is
provided through electronic means such
as e-mail from the broker-dealer (e.g.,
the broker-dealer respondent may take
only one minute, instead of the two
minutes estimated above, to provide the
penny stock disclosure document by email to its customer) and return e-mail
from the customer (the customer may
take only seven minutes, to review,
electronically sign and electronically
return the penny stock disclosure
document). In this regard, if each of the
customer respondents estimated above
communicates with his or her brokerdealer electronically, the total ongoing
respondent burden is approximately 8
minutes per response, or an aggregate
total of 1,248 minutes (156 customers ×
8 minutes per respondent). Assuming
240 respondents, the annual burden, if
electronic communications were used
by all customers, is 299,520 minutes
(1,248 minutes per each of the 240
respondents) or 4,992 hours. Under Rule
15g–2, the recordkeeping burden is
1,248 hours. Thus, if all broker-dealer
respondents obtain and send the
documents required under the rules
electronically, the aggregate annual hour
burden associated with Rule 15g–2 is
6,240 (1,248 hours + 4,992 hours).
In addition, if the penny stock
customer requests a paper copy of the
information on the Commission’s Web
site regarding microcap securities,
including penny stocks, from his or her
broker-dealer, the printing and mailing
of the document containing this
information takes no more than two
minutes per customer. Because many
investors have access to the
Commission’s Web site via computers
located in their homes, or in easily
accessible public places such as
libraries, then, at most, a quarter of
customers who are required to receive
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Rule 15g–2 disclosure document
request that their broker-dealer provide
them with the additional microcap and
penny stock information posted on the
Commission’s Web site. Thus, each
broker-dealer respondent processes
approximately 39 requests for paper
copies of this information per year or an
aggregate total of 78 minutes per
respondent (2 minutes per customer ×
39 requests per respondent). Since there
are 240 respondents, the estimated
annual burden is 18,720 minutes (78
minutes per each of the 240
respondents) or 312 hours.
We have no way of knowing how
many broker-dealers and customers will
chose to communicate electronically.
Assuming that 50 percent of
respondents continue to provide
documents and obtain signatures in
tangible form and 50 percent choose to
communicate electronically to satisfy
the requirements of Rule 15g–2, the total
aggregate burden hours is 7,176
((aggregate burden hours for documents
and signatures in tangible form × 0.50 of
the respondents = 3,744 hours) +
(aggregate burden hours for
electronically signed and transmitted
documents × 0.50 of the respondents =
3,120 hours) + (312 burden hours for
those customers making requests for a
copy of the information on the
Commission’s Web site)).
Written comments are invited on: (a)
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;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given
to comments and suggestions submitted
in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Comments should be directed to: R.
Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria,
Virginia 22312; or comments may be
sent by e-mail to:
PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must
be submitted within 60 days of this
notice.
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Notices
Dated: April 10, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–8182 Filed 4–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon written request, Copies available
from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor
Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549–0213.
sroberts on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Extension:
Rule 15g–9; SEC File No. 270–325 ; OMB
Control No. 3235–0385.
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’’) is soliciting comment
on the collection of information
described below. The Commission plans
to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
Section 15(c)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S. C. 78a et
seq.) (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’) authorizes
the Commission to promulgate rules
that prescribe means reasonably
designed to prevent fraudulent,
deceptive, or manipulative practices in
connection with over-the-counter
(‘‘OTC’’) securities transactions.
Pursuant to this authority, the
Commission in 1989 adopted Rule 15a–
6 (the ‘‘Rule’’), which was subsequently
redesignated as Rule 15g–9, 17 CFR
240.15g–9. The Rule requires brokerdealers to produce a written suitability
determination for, and to obtain a
written customer agreement to, certain
recommended transactions in lowpriced stocks that are not registered on
a national securities exchange or
authorized for trading on NASDAQ, and
whose issuers do not meet certain
minimum financial standards. The Rule
is intended to prevent the
indiscriminate use by broker-dealers of
fraudulent, high pressure telephone
sales campaigns to sell low-priced
securities to unsophisticated customers.
The Commission staff estimates that
there are approximately 240 brokerdealers subject to the Rule. The burden
of the Rule on a respondent varies
widely depending on the frequency
with which new customers are solicited.
On the average for all respondents, the
staff has estimated that respondents
process three new customers per week,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Apr 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
or approximately 156 new customer
suitability determinations per year. We
also estimate that a broker-dealer would
expend approximately one-half hour per
new customer in obtaining, reviewing,
and processing (including transmitting
to the customer) the information
required by Rule 15g–9, and each
respondent would consequently spend
78 hours annually (156 customers × .5
hours) obtaining the information
required in the rule. We determined,
based on the estimate of 240 brokerdealer respondents, that the current
annual burden of Rule 15g–9 is 18,720
hours (240 respondents × 78 hours).
In addition, we estimate that if
tangible communications alone are used
to transmit the documents required by
Rule 15g–9, each customer should take:
(1) No more than eight minutes to
review, sign and return the suitability
determination document; and (2) no
more than two minutes to either read
and return or produce the customer
agreement for a particular recommended
transaction in penny stocks, listing the
issuer and number of shares of the
particular penny stock to be purchased,
and send it to the broker-dealer. Thus,
the total current customer respondent
burden is approximately 10 minutes per
response, for an aggregate total of 1,560
minutes for each broker-dealer
respondent. Since there are 240
respondents, the annual burden for
customer responses is 374,400 minutes
(1,560 customer minutes per each of the
240 respondents) or 6,240 hours.
In addition, we estimate that, if
tangible means of communications
alone are used, broker-dealers could
incur a recordkeeping burden under
Rule 15g–9 of approximately two
minutes per response. Since there are
approximately 240 broker-dealer
respondents and each respondent would
have approximately 156 responses
annually, respondents would incur an
aggregate recordkeeping burden of
74,880 minutes (240 respondents × 156
responses × 2 minutes per response), or
1,248 hours. Accordingly, the aggregate
annual hour burden associated with
Rule 15g–9 is 26,208 hours (18,720
hours to prepare the suitability
statement and agreement + 6,240 hours
for customer review + 1,248
recordkeeping hours).
We recognize that under the
amendments to Rule 15g–9, the burden
hours may be slightly reduced if the
transaction agreement required under
the rule is provided through electronic
means such as e-mail from the customer
to the broker-dealer (e.g., the customer
may take only one minute, instead of
the two minutes estimated above, to
provide the transaction agreement by e-
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20975
mail rather than regular mail). If each of
the customer respondents estimated
above communicates with his or her
broker-dealer electronically, the total
burden hours on the customers would
be reduced from 10 minutes to 9
minutes per response, or an aggregate
total of 1,404 minutes per respondent
(156 customers × 9 minutes for each
customer). Since there are 240
respondents, the annual customer
respondent burden, if electronic
communications were used by all
customers, would be approximately
336,960 minutes (240 respondents ×
1,404 minutes per each respondent), or
5,616 hours. We do not believe the hour
burden on broker-dealers in obtaining,
reviewing, and processing the suitability
determination would change through
use of electronic communications. In
addition, we do not believe that, based
on information currently available to us,
recordkeeping burdens under Rule 15g–
9 would change where the required
documents were sent or received
through means of electronic
communication. Thus, if all brokerdealer respondents obtain and send the
documents required under the rule
electronically, the aggregate annual hour
burden associated with Rule 15g–9
would be 25,584 hours (18,720 hours to
prepare the suitability statement and
agreement + 5,616 hours for customer
review + 1,248 recordkeeping hours).
We cannot estimate how many brokerdealers and customers will choose to
communicate electronically. If we
assume that 50 percent of respondents
would continue to provide documents
and obtain signatures in tangible form,
and 50 percent would choose to
communicate electronically in
satisfaction of the requirements of Rule
15g–9, the total aggregate hour burden
would be 25,896 burden hours ((26,208
aggregate burden hours for documents
and signatures in tangible form × 0.50 of
the respondents = 13,104 hours) +
(25,584 aggregate burden hours for
electronically signed and transmitted
documents × 0.50 of the respondents =
12,792 hours)).
Written comments are invited on: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimates of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information on respondents; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 75 (Thursday, April 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20973-20975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8182]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Upon written request, Copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange
[[Page 20974]]
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:
Rule 15g-2; SEC File No. 270-381; OMB Control No. 3235-0434.
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'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
The ``Penny Stock Disclosure Rules'' (Rule 15g-2, 17 CFR 240.15g-2)
require broker-dealers to provide their customers with a risk
disclosure document, as set forth in Schedule 15G, prior to their first
non-exempt transaction in a ``penny stock.'' As amended, the rule
requires broker-dealers to obtain written acknowledgement from the
customer that he or she has received the required risk disclosure
document. The amended rule also requires broker-dealers to maintain a
copy of the customer's written acknowledgement for at least three years
following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided
to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place.
The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers,
to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in ``penny
stocks'' before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure
documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed
during the course of an examination by the Commission.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 240 broker-
dealers that could potentially be subject to current Rule 15g-2, and
that each one of these firms processes an average of three new
customers for penny stocks per week. Thus, each respondent processes
approximately 156 penny stock disclosure documents per year. If
communications in tangible form alone are used to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 15g-2, then (a) the copying and mailing of the
penny stock disclosure document takes no more than two minutes per
customer, and (b) each customer takes no more than eight minutes to
review, sign and return the penny stock disclosure document. Thus, the
total existing respondent burden is approximately 10 minutes per
response, or an aggregate total of 1,560 minutes per respondent. Since
there are 240 respondents, the current annual burden is 374,400 minutes
(1,560 minutes per each of the 240 respondents) or 6,240 hours. In
addition, broker-dealers incur a recordkeeping burden of approximately
two minutes per response. Since there are approximately 156 responses
for each respondent, the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping
burden of 74,880 minutes (240 respondents x 156 responses for each x 2
minutes per response) or 1,248 hours, under Rule 15g-2. Accordingly,
the current aggregate annual hour burden associated with Rule 15g-2
(that is, assuming that all respondents provide tangible copies of the
required documents) is approximately 7,488 hours (6,240 response hours
+ 1,248 recordkeeping hours).
The burden hours associated with Rule 15g-2 may be slightly reduced
when the penny stock disclosure document required under the rule is
provided through electronic means such as e-mail from the broker-dealer
(e.g., the broker-dealer respondent may take only one minute, instead
of the two minutes estimated above, to provide the penny stock
disclosure document by e-mail to its customer) and return e-mail from
the customer (the customer may take only seven minutes, to review,
electronically sign and electronically return the penny stock
disclosure document). In this regard, if each of the customer
respondents estimated above communicates with his or her broker-dealer
electronically, the total ongoing respondent burden is approximately 8
minutes per response, or an aggregate total of 1,248 minutes (156
customers x 8 minutes per respondent). Assuming 240 respondents, the
annual burden, if electronic communications were used by all customers,
is 299,520 minutes (1,248 minutes per each of the 240 respondents) or
4,992 hours. Under Rule 15g-2, the recordkeeping burden is 1,248 hours.
Thus, if all broker-dealer respondents obtain and send the documents
required under the rules electronically, the aggregate annual hour
burden associated with Rule 15g-2 is 6,240 (1,248 hours + 4,992 hours).
In addition, if the penny stock customer requests a paper copy of
the information on the Commission's Web site regarding microcap
securities, including penny stocks, from his or her broker-dealer, the
printing and mailing of the document containing this information takes
no more than two minutes per customer. Because many investors have
access to the Commission's Web site via computers located in their
homes, or in easily accessible public places such as libraries, then,
at most, a quarter of customers who are required to receive the Rule
15g-2 disclosure document request that their broker-dealer provide them
with the additional microcap and penny stock information posted on the
Commission's Web site. Thus, each broker-dealer respondent processes
approximately 39 requests for paper copies of this information per year
or an aggregate total of 78 minutes per respondent (2 minutes per
customer x 39 requests per respondent). Since there are 240
respondents, the estimated annual burden is 18,720 minutes (78 minutes
per each of the 240 respondents) or 312 hours.
We have no way of knowing how many broker-dealers and customers
will chose to communicate electronically. Assuming that 50 percent of
respondents continue to provide documents and obtain signatures in
tangible form and 50 percent choose to communicate electronically to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, the total aggregate burden
hours is 7,176 ((aggregate burden hours for documents and signatures in
tangible form x 0.50 of the respondents = 3,744 hours) + (aggregate
burden hours for electronically signed and transmitted documents x 0.50
of the respondents = 3,120 hours) + (312 burden hours for those
customers making requests for a copy of the information on the
Commission's Web site)).
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or
comments may be sent by e-mail to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must
be submitted within 60 days of this notice.
[[Page 20975]]
Dated: April 10, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8182 Filed 4-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
