Take notice that on January 17, 2001, Covert Generating Company, LLC (Covert), tendered for filing in the above-captioned proceeding, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act and part 35 of the Commission's regulations, a revised FERC Electric Tariff No. 1 which incorporates information that Covert included in its petition for authorization to sell capacity, energy, and certain Ancillary Services at market-based rates filed with the Commission on November 28, 2000 in the above-captioned proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before February 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

On December 15, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois), filed an amendment to the application for the Eastchester Project. Iroquois proposes to construct a natural gas pipeline from Long Island to the Bronx, New York. The amendment includes a new preferred route through the Bronx, three additional routing alternatives, as well as alternative interconnection locations with Consolidated Edison Company of New York's facilities. The amendment was noticed on December 28, 2000.

Iroquois's preferred alternative would traverse long Island Sound with landfall at Locust point. Through a combination of underground horizontal drilling and open-trench construction, the pipeline would cross the Throgs Neck Expressway, follow the Throgs Neck Expressway Extension to Lafayette Avenue and follow Lafayette Avenue to an interconnection site located just south of the intersection of Lafayette and Brush avenues on the east bank of Westchester Creek.

In a letter dated January 5, 2001, Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey requested a meeting be held to inform elected officials and the public about the pipeline certification process, Iroquois' amendment, and other viable route options. A technical meeting will be held to discuss these issues and to exchange information among state and federal agencies and U.S., state, and community representatives. The location and time for the technical meeting are listed below:

Date and Time: February 2, 2001, 10 a.m.

Location: Community Board 10, 3165 E. Tremont Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461.

Phone: (718) 892-1161.

While the public is welcome to attend the technical meeting, public comments will be received at the scoping meeting listed below:

Date and Time: February 15, 2001, 7 a.m.

Location: St. Francis de Chantal School, 2962 Harding Avenue, Bronx, NY 10465.

Phone: (718) 792-5500.

Comments received at the scoping meeting will assist Commission staff to determine the issues to be evaluated in the environmental impact statement and will be included in the Commission's record for this proceeding. Additional information may be obtained from John Schnagl, at (202) 219-2661.

Take notice that on January 12, 2001, Applicants filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. (MLCS) will: (1) Dispose of jurisdictional facilities by way of a sale and assignment of the right, title, obligation, and interest in certain of its wholesale electric power sales agreements and associated intellectual property, books and records to Allegheny Energy Global Markets, LLC (Allegheny Global), a newly formed and wholly-owned subsidiary of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Supply); and (2) transfer to MLCS membership interests in Allegheny Supply as part of that disposition.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before February 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

An informal settlement conference will be held in the above docket regarding the Kansas ad valorem tax refund issues in the proceedings involving the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company system. The conference will be held on February 7, 2001, at the Hilton Kansas City Airport hotel, 8801 112th Street, NW., Kansas City, Missouri. The conference will begin at 8:30 a.m. For questions concerning the conference please call Deborah Osborne, Dispute Resolution Service. Her telephone number is 202-208-0831 and her e-mail address is deborah.osborne@ferc.fed.us All interested parties in the above-reference docket are requested to attend. To ensure that the facilities are adequately sized for the participants, please let Deborah Osborne know if you are planning to attend by February 2, 2001.

Take notice that on January 10, 2001, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) filed an application under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization and approval for WPSC to transfer by assignment to the ATCLLC rights in transmission facility lease agreements WPSC has with Marshfield Electric and Water Department and Manitowoc Public Utilities.

A copy of the filing has been served on the Public Service Commissions of Michigan and Wisconsin.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before February 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web side at ­http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Take notice that the staff conference on affiliate issues that was to be convened in this proceeding on January 31, 2001 at 1 p.m. will be deferred until March 15, 2001. We are deferring the conference in light of the request for postponement filed by the Edison Electric Institute's Alliance of Energy Suppliers (Alliance) and supported by Reliant Energy Services. As noted in the Alliance's request, a deferral will allow resources to be more effectively applied to ongoing concerns. Deferral of the conference will also allow the Commission and the parties to incorporate winter operating experience in both the gas and electric industries in the discussion. A notice establishing the composition of the panel(s) will be issued in advance of the conference.

For additional information, contact Robert Flanders at (202) 208-2084.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 12, 2001.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

1. Michael William Walsh, St. Louis, Missouri; to retain voting shares of Jefferson County Bancshares, Inc., Festus, Missouri, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Eagle Bank and Trust Company of Jefferson County, Hillsboro, Missouri.

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 01-54) published on page 371 of the issue for Wednesday, January 3, 2001.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia heading, the entry for Juniper Financial Corp., Wilmington, Delaware, is revised to read as follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:

1. Juniper Financial Corp., Wilmington, Delaware; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Juniper Bank, Wilmington, Delaware, a de novo bank, and First Bank, CBC, Maryville, Missouri. Juniper bank will be the successor by merger with First Bank.

Comments on this application must be received by February 12, 2001.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 22, 2001.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

1. Southern Community Financial Corporation., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Southern Community Bank & Trust, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:

1. Persons Banking Company, Inc., Lithonia, Georgia; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The Farmers Bank, Forsyth, Georgia.

2. Synovus Financial Corp., Columbus, Georgia; to acquire approximately 6 percent of the voting shares of Juniper Financial Corporation. Wilmington, Delaware, and thereby acquire shares of Juniper Bank, Wilmington, Delaware, a de novo bank, and First Bank, CBC, Maryville, Missouri. Juniper Bank will be the successor by merger with First Bank.

C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

1. Sterling Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, and Sterling Bancorporation, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to merge with CaminoReal Bancshares, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of CaminoReal Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, and CaminoReal Bank, N.A., San Antonio, Texas.

The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 22, 2001.

A .Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

1. Platte Valley Financial Services, Inc., Scottsbluff, Nebraska; to acquire Tri-County Bancorp, Torrington, Wyoming, and thereby indirectly acquire Tri-County Bank, Torrington, Wyoming, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:

Title: Social Services Block Grant Post-Expenditure Report.

OMB No.: New.

Description:

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of data on the utilization of SSBG funds a revised reporting form needs to be developed with instructions that will eliminate confusion and reporting inconsistencies that have resulted from the current form. As a block grant, SSBG provides the States with a flexible source of funds for social service needs. Accurate accounting of how these funds are used and whom they serve is critical to ensure that necessary and sufficient funding continues to be allocated. For this reason, the following changes are being proposed to the current form:

1. The codes that indicated whether expenditures were actual or estimates are omitted on the revised form. These codes have not been filled in consistently and have been of little analytical value.

2. The codes that indicated whether recipients were duplicated or unduplicated are omitted on the revised form. These codes have not been filled in consistently and have been of little analytical value.

3. Columns containing SSBG cost per adult and SSBG cost per child are omitted. SSBG cost per recipient can be calculated using the number of recipients and amount of expenditures reported.

4. Items 30 a,b,c and d (transfers in, transfers out, carry forward and carry over) are omitted on the revised form. Information about how much of allocated funds were spent will be reported on the Form 269a (OMB No. 0348-0036). Information about funds transferred into SSBG is in a separate expenditures column.

5. On the revised form, expenditures of SSBG funds is divided into two subcolumns—SSBG Allocation and Funds Transferred into SSBG. This provides more information about how transferred funds was used than the previous form which had only a place for Transfers In. States are instructed to note at the bottom from which block grant these funds were transferred.

6. A column is added for Expenditures of All other Federal, State and Local Funds. The addition of this column, with accompanying instructions, will make more clear that States are to report all sources of funds for services supported by SSBG.

7. The column for Adults is divided into two age groups. Adults are counted as either “Adults Age 59 or younger” or “Adults Age 60 or older”. A column for total adults is also included, which can be used by States who do not know the age breakout of the adult recipients. This more detailed reporting of Adults will allow considerably greater detailed analyses of the use of SSBG for specific services.

8. The order of two services, special services for youth at risk and special services for the disabled, has been changed from the previous version of the post-expenditure report form so that services are in the correct alphabetical order.

The Social Services Block Grant program (SSBG) provides funds to assist States in delivering social services directed towards the need of children and adults in the State. Funds are allocated to the States in proportion to their populations. States, including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa have substantial discretion in their use of funds and may determine what services will be provided, who will be eligible, and how funds are distributed among the various services. State or local SSBG agencies (i.e., county, city, regional offices) may provide the services or may purchase them from qualified agencies, organizations or individuals. States report as recipients of SSBG-funded services any individuals who receive a service funded at least partially by SSBG.

States are required to report their annual SSBG expenditures on a standard post-expenditure report, which includes a yearly total of adults and children served and annual expenditures in each of 29 service categories. Reporting requirements for SSBG were originally described in the Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 218, on Monday November 15, 1993. The annual report is to be submitted within six months of the end of the period covered by the report, and must address (1) the number of individuals (as well as number of children and number of adults) who receive services paid for in whole or in part with federal funds under the Social Services Block Grant; (2) the amount of Social Services Block Grant funds spent in providing each service; (3) the total amount of federal, state and local funds spent in providing each service, including Social Services Block Grant funds; and (4) the method(s) by which each service is provided, showing separately the services provided by public agencies, private agencies.

Information collected on the post-expenditure report is analyzed and described in an annual report on SSBG expenditures and recipients produced by the Office of Community Services. The information contained in this report is used to establish how SSBG funding is used for the provision of services in each State to each of many specific populations of needy individuals.

Respondents: This report is completed once annually by a representative of the agency that administers the Social Services Block Grant at the State level in each State, the District of Columbia and the Territories.

In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

The Department specifically requests comments 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 estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 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 within 60 days of this publication.

This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) as follows: Chapter KF, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) as last amended October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54330). This reorganization will create an Office of Deputy Commissioner and abolish the Office of Central Office Operations. It establishes three new Divisions within OCSE—the Division of Management Services, the Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Division of Special Staffs. In addition, this reorganization renames two Divisions and reassigns functions and reporting responsibilities.

I. Amend Chapter KF as follows:

a. KF.00 Mission. Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:

KF.00 Mission. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) advises the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families/Director of Office of Child Support Enforcement, on matters relating to child support enforcement. OCSE, in conjunction with Regional Offices, provides direction, guidance and oversight to State and tribal Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program offices and Tribes for activities authorized and directed by title IV-D of the Social Security Act and other pertinent legislation. The general purpose of the CSE legislation is to permit State and tribes to develop programs for establishing and enforcing support obligations by locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity when necessary, obtaining child support orders, and enforcing those orders. The specific responsibilities of this Office are to: develop, recommend and issue policies, procedures and interpretations for State and tribal programs for locating non-custodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support; develop procedures for review and approval or disapproval of State and tribal plan material; conduct audits of child support programs; assist State and tribes in establishing adequate reporting procedures and maintaining records for the operation of the CSE programs and of amounts collected and disbursed under the CSE program and the costs incurred in collecting such amounts; provide technical assistance and training to the State and tribes to help them develop effective procedures and systems for establishing paternity, establishing support orders and collecting child support; operate the law enforcement, military and judicial liaison offices; operate the United State and tribes Central Authority for International Child Support; monitor the access, visitation and fatherhood programs. OCSE also operates the mandatory and discretionary grant programs for child support as well as several other components within the Administration for Children and Families; and reviews and manages the clearance of Federal Register Notices for OCSE, and various components of ACF. It also coordinates the child support provisions of the Welfare-to-Work program; certify applications from State and tribes for permission to utilize the courts of the United State and tribes to enforce court orders for support against absent parents; operate the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS); certify to the Secretary of the Treasury amounts of child support obligations that require collection in appropriate instances; transmits to the Secretary of State certifications of arrearages for passport denial; submit reports to Congress, as requested, on activities undertaken relative to the CSE program; approve advanced data processing planning documents; and review, assess and inspect planning, design and operation of State and tribal management information systems. The FPLS also assists other Federal and State and tribal agencies not involved in child support to fulfill their respective missions, save taxpayer dollars, and improve service to the public.

b. KF.10 Organization. Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:

KF.10 Organization. The Office of Child Support Enforcement is headed by a Director and consists of:

KF.20 Functions.

KFA. Office of the Director and Deputy Director/Commissioner. The Director is also the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families and is directly responsible to the Secretary for carrying out OCSE's mission. The Deputy Director/Commissioner has day-to-day operational responsibility for Child Support Enforcement programs. The Deputy Director/Commissioner assists the Director in carrying out responsibilities of the Office and provides direction and leadership to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, the Office of the Automation and Program Operations, Office of Audit, Office of Grants Management, and Office of Mandatory Grants.

The Office is responsible for developing regulations, guidance and standards for State/Tribes to observe in locating absent parents; establishing paternity and support obligations and enforcing support obligations; maintaining relationships with Department officials, other federal departments, State and tribal and local officials, and private organizations and individuals interested in the CSE program; coordinating and planning child support enforcement activities to maximize program effectiveness; outreach to the communities of faith and service, as well as access/visitation programs and advocacy interests and approving all instructions, policies and publications issued by OCSE staff. The Office is responsible for Child Support Enforcement financial analysis and strategy development; overall grants and contracts planning and oversight, internal OCSE compliance operations; and the management of large-scale or high profile assistance activities involving multiple OCSE areas of responsibility.

KFB1. Office of Audit develops, plans, schedules and conducts periodic audits of CSE programs in accordance with audit standards promulgated by the Comptroller General. It is also responsible for liaison with other agencies on special law enforcement initiatives. The Division, headed by a Director reports directly to the Deputy Director/Commissioner, and will audit, at least once every three years (or more frequently in the case of a State which fails to meet the performance standards and the tests of the reliability of program data), the reliability of State financial and statistical data reporting systems used in calculating the paternity establishment percentage and the performance indicators used as the basis for the payment of performance based financial incentives to the State. These audits will examine the computer systems general and application controls and include in deputy testing of the data produced by the system to ensure that it is valid, complete and reliable. The Office will also conduct financial audits to determine whether federal and other funds made available to carry out the CSE programs are being appropriately expended, and properly and fully accounted for. These audits will also examine collections and disbursements of support payments for proper processing and accounting treatment.

The Office will also provide technical assistance to State and tribes in developing their self-assessment capabilities and implementing the annual reporting requirements contained in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.

In addition, the Office will also conduct other audits and examinations of program operations as may be necessary or requested by program officials for the purpose of improving the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of State, tribal, and local child support activities; develops consolidated reports for the Director and Deputy Director/Commissioner, OCSE based on findings; provides specifications for the development of audit regulations and requirements for audits of State and tribal CSE programs; and coordinates and maintains effective liaison with the HHS Inspector General's Office and with the General Accounting Office.

The Office operates Project Save Our Children, a law enforcement liaison initiative which is a coalition of task forces, which currently covers 20 States and the District of Columbia. This initiative addresses interstate and tribal cases by: (1) Creating a formal partnership between CSE and the criminal justice system; (2) devising new ways to analyze and interpret information; and (3) making interstate and tribal child support enforcement a priority with the criminal justice community. At the heart of the task forces is a case screening unit and its information platform through which public and private databases are queried in an attempt to gather information concerning the whereabouts and assets of the non-custodial parents. Project Save Our Children's goal is to increase child support collections through the identification, investigation, and, when warranted, prosecution of flagrant, delinquent child support offenders. Project Save Our Children makes this possible by creating a nationwide, comprehensive, coordinated Health and Human Services/Justice Department response to unresolved interstate and tribal child support enforcement cases.

KFB. Office of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner reports to the Deputy Director/Commissioner and assists the Commissioner in carrying out the responsibilities of OCSE, and provides leadership and direction to the Division of Consumer Services, Division of Management Services, Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Division of Policy, Division of Special Staffs, the Division of State, Tribal, Local Assistance, and the Office of Automation and Program Operations.

KFA-2. Division of Consumer Services provides direction and leadership for a variety of consumer affairs activities in support of the nationwide child support enforcement program. It provides advice on strategies and approaches to be used to improve public understanding of and access to OCSE programs and policies; develops and publishes informational materials and disseminates them through the National Reference Center and promotes “best” child support practices to the public through monthly publication of the Child Support Report. The Division advises the Deputy Director/Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner of the impact of the child support enforcement program upon consumers and provides a focal point for intergovernmental and consumer relations and consultation. This Division manages the access/visitation grants, the fatherhood initiative, and is responsible for the outreach to the communities of faith and service. The Division is also responsible for national electronic communications activities including disseminating information and operation of the OCSE Homepage on the internet and insuring that the information is placed thereon in a timely and accurate manner.

KFB2. The Division of Management Services manages the formulation and execution of the budgets for OCSE operated programs and for Federal administration of the CSE program; serves as the central control point for operational and long-range planning of the needs of the OCSE; plans for and coordinates the provision of staff development and training; provides support for OCSE's personnel administration, including staffing, employee and labor relations, performance management, and employee recognition; manages procurement planning and provides technical assistance regarding procurement; reviews and approves formula, entitlement, and block grant actions in conjunction with OCSE Offices and Divisions; manages OCSE-controlled space and facilities; performs manpower planning and administration; plans for, acquires, distributes, and controls OCSE supplies; provides mail and messenger services; maintains duplicating, fax, computer and computer peripheral equipment; supports and manages automation acquisition within OCSE; provides for health and safety; and overseas travel. It is also responsible for the day-to-day operational and administrative support services for the Office of Mandatory Grants and the Office of Grants Management, and other functions for OCSE. In addition, the Division reviews and manages clearance of Federal Register Notices and program announcements for OCSE, the Office of Family Assistance, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Office of Community Services, and the Office of Research and Evaluation.

KFA4. Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation is the principal advisor to the Deputy Commissioner on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of programs designed to make measurable improvements in the economic and social well-being of children and families.

The Division provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight to CSE programs and across programs in ACF on strategic planning aimed at measurable results; performance measurement; research and evaluation methodologies; demonstration testing and model development; statistical, policy and program analysis; synthesis and dissemination of research and demonstration findings; and application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery. The Division is also responsible for the collection, compilation, and analysis, and dissemination of data.

The Division oversees and manages the section 1115 social research programs relating to CSE, including: priority setting and analysis; processing waivers for OSCE; managing and coordinating major cross-cutting, leading-edge studies, collaborating with State and tribes, communities, foundations, professional organizations and others to promote the development of children, family focused services, parental responsibility, employment, and economic independence; and providing coordination.

KFB5. Division of Policy proposes and implements national policy for the CSE program and provides policy guidance and interpretations to State and tribes in developing and operating their programs according to federal law. It develops legislative proposals and regulations to implement new legislation, court decisions or directives from higher authority and provides comments on pending legislative proposals. The Division develops new State and Tribal plan preprint requirements and procedures for review and approval of State plans by the OCSE regional offices and prepares the justification for State plan disapproval actions. In consultation with the Director, Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation, negotiates with State and Tribes the five year national strategic plan. Coordinates with the Office of the General Counsel on pending departmental appeals.

KFA6. Division of Special Staffs. The Division of Special Staffs provides leadership to special high profile, high priority projects resulting from new legislation which expand the provision of child support services, such as employer outreach and relations, health industry enforcement, Hispanic outreach and welfare-to-work. In addition, the Division office has responsibility for implementation of the United States and tribes Central Authority for International Child Support and the new Native American/Tribal Child Support Enforcement Program. In coordination with the Division of Policy, the Division conducts consultations and outreach to Tribes; reviews Tribal plans and works across OCSE Divisions in providing guidance, assistance and information to Tribes. The Division also works with the Office of Mandatory Grants in the issuance grants to Tries.

KFB6. Division of State, Tribal, and Local Assistance, in concert with regional offices, provides information and assistance on CSE operations. It provides national direction and leadership for training and technical assistance activities and regional operations to increase CSE program effectiveness both at Federal and State/Tribal levels; develops guides and resource materials and serves as a clearinghouse for specialized program techniques for use by ACF regional offices and State and tribes; and ensures the transfer of best practices among State/tribes and local CSE enforcement agencies. The Division operates a national CSE training center which includes the operation of the National Electronic Resource System; provides logistical support for both training events and meetings; and monitors contracts with organizations affiliated with child support enforcement programs in the areas of training and technical assistance. The Division, through the Special Initiatives Branch, provides outreach and liaison services to a variety of special interest populations including (a) outreach to the homeless population, (b) interstate and tribal services, (c) intrastate (d) the judiciary, (e) law enforcement agencies, and (f) the military.

KFC. Office of Automation and Program Operations. The Office is headed by an Associate Commissioner who reports to the Deputy Director/Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner and provides leadership and direction to the Division of State and Tribal Systems and Division of Federal Systems.

KFC5. Division of Federal Systems is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), the Federal Tax Refund Offset Program, Project 1099, the IRS Full Collection Project, and the SSN Enumeration Verification System. The Division is also responsible for the design, development, implementation and operation of the Federal Case Registry (FCR) and the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) within the expanded FPLS. It is responsible for monitoring contracts with vendors who provide automated systems support and quality assurance to these programs; working with vendors to define scope of work to be performed and by whom; negotiating interagency agreements; and providing contract oversight. The Division, is consultation with the Division of State, Tribal, and Local Assistance, also provides technical assistance to State/tribal and local child support enforcement agencies. The Division provides guidance and expertise to State/Tribes concerning other State, interstate, tribal and national locate networks and sources. In addition, the Division works with the U.S. Department of State on passport revocation and other Federal agencies authorized to have access to NDNH and FCR data. The data is being used to: detect overpayments in the Supplemental Security Income and Disability programs; determine eligibility in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program; collect defaulted loans and grants made through the Department of Education's Student Loan Program; and, aid vital welfare reform research.

KFC4. Division of State and Tribal Systems reviews analyzes, and approves/disapproves State and tribal requests for Federal financial participation for automated systems development activities, which support the Child Support program. It provides assistance to State/Tribes in developing or modifying automation plans to conform to Federal requirements. It monitors approved State and tribal systems development activities; certifies State and tribal wide automated systems; conducts periodic reviews to assure State and tribal compliance with regulatory requirements applicable to automated systems supported by federal financial participation. It provides guidance to State and tribes on functional requirements for these automated information systems. It promotes interstate and tribal transfer of existing automated systems and provides assistance and guidance to improve ACF's programs through the use of automated systems.

KFD. Office of Grants Management. The Office of Grants Management is headed by a Director who reports to the Deputy Director/Commissioner and receives daily operational and administrative support services from the Director of Management Services. The Division provides management and technical administration for discretionary grants to the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Office of Community Services (OCS), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) and Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE); reviews, certifies and/or signs all discretionary grants; assures that all discretionary grants awarded by OCSE, OCS, OFA and OPRE conform with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies; computes grantee allocations, prepares discretionary grant awards, ensures incorporation of necessary grant terms and conditions, and provides data in support of apportionment requests; prepares reports and analyses on the grantee's use of funds; maintains liaison and coordination with appropriate ACF and HHS organizations to ensure consistency between OCSE, OCS, OFA, and OPRE discretionary grant systems and the Department's grant payment systems; and provides technical assistance to regional components on discretionary grant operations and technical grants management issues; and performs audit resolutions activities for OCSE, OCS, OFA, and OPRE discretionary grant programs. On behalf of OCSE, OCS, OFA, and OPRE, coordinates and conducts liaison with the Department and other federal agencies on discretionary grants.

KFG. Office of Mandatory Grants. The Office of Mandatory Grants is headed by a Director who reports to the Deputy Director/Commissioner and receives daily operational administrative support services from the Director of Management Services. The Division provides management and technical administration of formula, entitlement and block grants administered by the following ACF program offices; OCSE; Office of Family Assistance (OFA); Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and Office of Community Services (OCS). It assures that all formula, entitlement and block grant awards conform with applicable statues, regulations, and policies; computes grantee allocations; prepares formula, entitlement and block grant awards; ensures incorporation of necessary grant terms and conditions, monitors grantee expenditures; analyzes financial needs under formula, entitlement and block grant programs; provides data in support of apportionment requests; prepares reports and analyses on the grantee's use of funds; maintains liaison and coordination with appropriate ACF and HHS organizations to ensure consistency between ACF formula, entitlement and block grant systems and the Department's grant payment systems; provides technical assistance to ACF program and regional components on formula, entitlement and block grant operations and technical grants management issues; and performs audit resolution activities for formula, entitlement and block grant programs. For OCSE and the other program offices served, provides liaison with the Department and other federal agencies on formula, entitlement and block grants management and administration operational issues and activities.

Time and Date: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2001 & 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, March 13, 2001.

Place: Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: Fiscal Year 2002 Service Plan Recommendations, Updates on Mental Health Program Options and Interstate Compact Activities; and Results of Advisory Board Hearings.

Contact Person for More Information: Larry Solomon, Deputy Director, 202-307-3106, ext. 155.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Leadership Initiatives Advisory Panel (Media Arts section B, Arts on Radio and Television category), to the National Council on the Arts will be held on January 31, 2001. The meeting will be held by teleconference at 2:30 p.m. in Room 726 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506.

This meeting is for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of May 12, 2000, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.56, to the Special Nuclear Materials License No. 2506 (SNM-2506) held by the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (licensee) for the Prairie Island independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The requested amendment would revise the license and Technical Specifications of SNM-2506 to specifically permit the storage of burnable poison rod assemblies (BPRAs) and thimble plug devices (TBDs) within the TN-40 casks used at the Prairie Island ISFSI.

The staff is considering issuance of an amendment to revise the license and Technical Specifications of SNM-2506 for the Prairie Island ISFSI. The changes to the license and Technical Specifications would specifically permit the storage of BPRAs and/or TPDs within the TN-40 dry storage casks used at the Prairie Island ISFSI.

The proposed action is needed to eliminate the need to physically remove BPRAs and TPDs from irradiated fuel assemblies that have already been loaded into the TN-40 dry storage casks and irradiated fuel assemblies that will be loaded into TN-40 dry storage casks in the future. Permitting the proposed action would result in the reduction of exposure time to plant workers handling the BPRAs and TPDs and a more effective ALARA program pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1101(b).

The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that granting the amendment to specifically allow the storage of BPRAs and TPDs within the TN-40 casks used at the Prairie Island ISFSI will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite. With regard to radiological impacts, the addition of irradiated BPRAs and TPDs only affects the gamma source term of the cask. The offsite dose rates were calculated to increase an insignificant amount. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

The amendment only affects the requirements associated with the content of the casks and does not affect non-radiological plant effluents or any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, alternatives are not evaluated other than the no action alternative. The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the request for amendment (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the proposed action would result in greater exposures to plant workers due to the fact that the BPRAs and TPDs would have to be physically removed from each fuel assembly possessing them. Physical removal of irradiated BPRAs and TPDs would increase exposure time and dose to the plant workers and would require disposal or storage of additional radioactive material (i.e., BPRAs and TPDs) that would otherwise be safely stored if the BPRAs and TPDs are left intact with its irradiated fuel assembly and loaded into dry cask storage. The environmental impacts of the alternative action may be greater than the proposed action.

Given that there may be greater environmental impacts associated with the alternative action of denying the amendment, the Commission concludes that the preferred alternative is to grant this amendment request.

On December 27, 2000, Mr. Rakow of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Electric Unit, was consulted about the EA for the proposed action and had no concerns.

The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting an amendment to permit the storage of BPRAs and TPDs within the TN-40 casks used at the Prairie Island ISFSI will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to this action, see the amendment application dated August 31, 1999, as supplemented. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 11155 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

The ACNW Working Group meeting will hold a meeting on February 21-22, 2001, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

The Working Group will review the chemistry aspects of documents intended to support the Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation Considerations Report (SRCR) and the NRC/DOE issue resolution process. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Working Group Chairman; written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Working Group, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACNW staff scientist named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the meeting, the Working Group, along with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.

The Working Group may then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACNW staff scientist, Dr. Andrew C. Campbell (telephone 301/415-6897) between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on February 22, 2001, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

The Subcommittee will discuss the NRC staff's draft Safety Evaluation Report for the Entergy Operations, Inc., license renewal application for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Entergy Operations, Inc., and other interested persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone 301/415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

The ACRS Subcommittees on Plant Operations and on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment will hold a joint meeting on February 21, 2001, in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

The Subcommittees will discuss the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company's exemption request to exclude certain components from the scope of special treatment requirements in 10 CFR parts 21, 50, and 100. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairmen and written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittees, their consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittees, along with any of their consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.

The Subcommittees will then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Ms. Maggalean W. Weston (telephone 301/415-3151) between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

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 requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below.

Appendix F to Rule 15c3-1 requires a broker-dealer choosing to register as an OTC derivative dealer to develop and maintain an internal risk management system based on Value-at-Risk (“VAR”) models. Appendix F also requires the OTC derivatives to notify Commission staff of the system and of certain other periodic information including when the VAR model deviates from the actual performance of the OTC derivatives dealer's portfolio. It is anticipated that approximately six (6) broker-dealers will spend 1,000 hours per year complying with Appendix F. The total burden is estimated to be approximately 6,000 hours. Each broker-dealer will spend approximately $76,500 per response for a total annual expense for all broker-dealers of $459,000.

Rule 17Ad-16 requires a registered transfer agent to provide written notice to a qualified registered securities depository when assuming or terminating transfer agent services on behalf of an issuer or when changing its name or address. These recordkeeping requirements address the problem of certificate transfer delays caused by transfer requests that are directed to the wrong transfer agent or the wrong address.

Given that there are approximately 450 respondents who submit Rule 17Ad-16 notices, the staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for each transfer agent to comply with Rule 17Ad-16 is approximately 15 minutes per notice or 3.5 hours per year, totaling 1,575 hours industry-wide. The average cost per hour is approximately $30 per hour, with the industry-wide cost estimated at approximately $47,250. However, the information required by Rule 17Ad-16 generally already is maintained by registered transfer agents. The amount of time devoted to compliance with Rule 17Ad-16 varies according to differences in business activity.

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.

Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (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; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 notice is hereby given that on January 16, 2001, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”),2 submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“Plan”). The amendment would establish certain notification requirements of the Plan Processor and make minor editorial revisions to the Plan. OPRA has stated that the proposed amendment involves solely technical or ministerial matters and is, therefore, effective upon filing, pursuant to Rule 11Aa3-2(c)(3)(iii) under the Act.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed amendment from interested persons.

On November 27, 2000, the Commission approved an amendment to the Plan,4 pursuant to section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act 5 and Rule 11Aa3-2(b)(2)6 thereunder. The Commission Amendment established a formula for allocating OPRA systems capacity among the OPRA participants during peak usage periods. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to conform the language added to the Plan by the Commission Amendment to the language and style of the remainder of the Plan, and to make additional nonsubstantive editorial changes to the Commission Amendment language to clarify its meaning and operation. The proposed amendment also would require the Plan Processor to notify each party and the Commission whenever total systems capacity reaches 90 percent of total available systems capacity or whenever the capacity allocation procedures provided for in the Plan go into effect or are discontinued. OPRA has stated that, except for these notification provisions, the proposed amendment would make no substantive change to the provisions of the Plan that were added pursuant to the Commission Amendment.

OPRA has stated that the proposed amendment involves solely technical or ministerial matters and is, therefore, effective upon filing, pursuant to Rule 11Aa3-2(c)(3)(iii) under the Act.7

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment and require that such amendment be filed in accordance with Rule 11Aa3-2(b)(1) under the Act 8 and reviewed in accordance with rule 11Aa3-2(c)(2) under the Act 9 if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets; to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed plan amendment is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, and all written statements with respect to the proposed plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan amendment between the Commission and any person, other than those 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. Copies of the filing will also be available at the principal offices of OPRA. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OPRA-01-01 and should be submitted by February 20, 2001.

On April 5, 2000, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “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 relating to municipal fund securities. On July 17, 2000, the Board submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 2, 2000.4 The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.5 On October 12, 2000, the Board submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.6 This order approves the proposal, as amended. The Commission also seeks comment from interested persons on Amendment No. 2.

The proposed rule change consisted of the following: (1) A proposed definition of municipal fund security; (2) amendments to MSRB Rule A-13 regarding underwriting and transaction assessments; (3) amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 regarding the classification of principals and representatives, and testing and continuing education requirements; (4) amendments to MSRB Rule G-8 regarding books and records; (5) amendments to MSRB Rule G-14 regarding reports of sales or purchases; (6) amendments to MSRB Rule G-15 regarding confirmations and clearance and settlement of transactions with customers; (7) amendments to MSRB Rule G-26 regarding customer account transfers; (8) amendments to MSRB Rule G-32 regarding disclosures in connection with new issues; and (9) amendments to MSRB Rule G-34 regarding CUSIP numbers and new issue requirements. In addition, the MSRB submitted a proposed interpretation regarding sales of municipal fund securities in the primary market.

The Board proposed to define a municipal fund security as a municipal security that would qualify as a security of an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 if it had not been issued by a state or local governmental entity.7

As a threshold matter, a municipal fund security must meet the definition of municipal security in section 3(a)(29) of the Act 8 before a determination can be made as to whether it is a municipal fund security. As proposed by the Board, if a security meets the definition of municipal fund security then dealer transactions would be subject to all MSRB rules. The Board noted that its proposed definition would not be limited to interests in local government pools or higher education trusts that may be found to be municipal securities. The proposed definition would apply to any other municipal security issued under a program that, but for the identity of the issuer as a state or local governmental entity, would constitute an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

On October 28, 1999, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 2 to establish a corporate bond trade reporting and transaction dissemination facility and to eliminate Nasdaq's Fixed Income Pricing System (“FIPS”). Notice of the proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 10, 1999.3 The Commission received 39 comment letters regarding the proposal.4

On November 17 and November 22, 2000, respectively, the NASD filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed rule change.5 Notice of these amendments was published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2000.6 The Commission received 13 additional comments on the amended proposal since that time.7 On January 5, 2001, the NASD filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.8 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendments 2-4, accelerates approval of Amendment No. 4, and solicits comments from interested persons on that Amendment.

In 1998, Commission staff conducted a review of the U.S. debt market, with a particular focus on price transparency. The review concluded that the corporate bond market did not measure up to the standard of other securities markets—including the government and municipal bond markets—in making price information readily available to investors. In light of these findings, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt called upon the NASD to take the following actions:

In September 1998 and March 1999, Chairman Levitt testified for the Commission before Congress on bond transparency; in May 1999, the Commission submitted its Statement Concerning Transparency in the U.S. Corporate Debt Market to the Securities Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee.10 In these statements, which were approved by the Commission, Chairman Levitt described the results of the Commission's debt review, reiterated the request that the NASD improve bond transparency, and described the NASD's progress in implementing the proposal.

As noted above, in October 1999 the NASD filed the original version of the proposed rule change that is being approved today in amended form. In its general outline, the amended proposal requires NASD members to report transaction information on specified U.S. corporate bonds and establishes a transaction dissemination facility—to be known as the Trade Reporting and Comparison Entry Service, or “TRACE”11 —to facilitate the reporting, collection, and public dissemination of this transaction information. In its amended proposal, the NASD also states that, in accordance with the Commission's mandate, it intends to use TRACE reports to develop a database of transactions that will enable NASD Regulation (“NASDR”) to take a more proactive role in supervising the corporate debt market. The specifics of the proposed rule change are described in Section IV below.

The 39 comment letters received in response to the original proposal are summarized in Sections III and V below. Although these letters generally supported enhanced price transparency in the corporate debt markets, they raised a number of specific concerns. As a result, the NASD entered into substantial discussions with industry representatives, including The Bond Market Association (“TBMA”), aimed at responding to their comments. Subsequently, the NASD filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposal to reflect discussions with the industry. Commenters filed 13 additional comments in response to those Amendments; the NASD filed Amendment No. 4 to address those comments.

The principal areas of concern reflected in the 39 initial comment letters related to potential negative effects on liquidity; the role of Nasdaq as an exclusive processor of bond data given its announced intention to become a privatized, profit-making exchange; and objections of some market participants to the associated mandatory trade comparison service. There were also concerns that the proposed implementation schedule was impractical.

Comments submitted in response to Amendments 2 and 3 suggested that those Amendments did not fully resolve all the concerns regarding the original proposal, and suggested alternative approaches to facilitate corporate bond transparency. Sections IV and V below discuss both rounds of comments, the ways in which the NASD amended its proposal to address the concerns articulated in those comments, and the Commission's findings after consideration of the comments.

The original TRACE proposal contemplated: (1) The adoption of new rules (“NASD/TRACE Rules”) requiring members to report transactions in specified U.S. corporate bonds (“TRACE-eligible bonds”)12 to Nasdaq; and (2) the establishment of the TRACE facility, operated by Nasdaq, to facilitate the collection, dissemination, and comparison of reported transactions. As proposed, TRACE featured a mandatory trade comparison component for transactions between two NASD members in which a reported “buy” or “sell” would be compared with the contra side of the transaction and forwarded to the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) for clearance and settlement as a “locked-in” trade. Significantly, the NASD proposed to use TRACE reports to develop a database of transactions in corporate bonds to enable NASDR and Nasdaq Market Watch staff to take a more proactive role in surveilling the corporate bond market. Finally, the NASD proposed to eliminate the FIPS reporting system for high-yield corporate bonds.13

Implementation of the proposal was to take place in two phases. In the first phase of the plan, which would last six months, members were required to report transactions to TRACE within one hour after trade execution, and there was no public dissemination of transaction information. In the second phase, the one-hour reporting interval was reduced to 15 minutes, and immediate dissemination of transaction information for all reported bonds except Rule 144A issues was to begin. Trade reports were required to include: (1) Trade “side,” i.e., whether a buy, sell, or “cross” transaction; (2) CUSIP number or NASD symbol; (3) quantity; (4) price, inclusive of mark-up, mark-down, and stated commission (stated commission to be reported as a separate field for agency trades); (5) contra party's NASD symbol (or “C” for customer); (6) date and time of trade execution; and (7) capacity, i.e., principal (with riskless principal reported as principal) or agent. As noted, TRACE generally proposed to disseminate actual quantity of bonds traded expressed as par value; however, high-yield and unrated bond transactions over $1 million par value were proposed to be disseminated as “1MM+,” and investment grade transactions over $5 million par value were proposed to be disseminated as “5MM+.”

In response to comments received on the initial proposal, and after extensive discussions, the NASD made six main changes to the proposal:

The NASD's proposed phase-in schedule contemplates the involvement of a Bond Transaction Reporting Committee (“BTRC”) to advise the NASD Board of Governors regarding liquidity issues. The BTRC will consist of eight persons selected by the NASD Board. Four members will be recommended by the staff of the NASD; the other four members will be recommended by TBMA.14 The BTRC will provide input to the NASD Board on issues related to the operation of TRACE, including effects on liquidity associated with the dissemination of transaction information. The BTRC also will make recommendations to the NASD Board concerning appropriate time frames for public dissemination of transaction information for smaller, less-actively traded issues.15 The NASD represents that its staff may make independent recommendations or proposals to the NASD Board concerning bond market issues. In any case, the NASD Board will have the authority and responsibility to determine how and at what pace to expand the public dissemination of transaction reports.

During the first three months of the plan (Phase I), NASD members will be required to report transactions in TRACE-eligible securities within one hour of trade execution. The NASD will immediately disseminate transaction reports in publicly offered, investment grade corporate bonds having an initial issuance size of $1 billion or greater. If applicable, these reports will include the large volume trade dissemination cap identifier (“5 MM+”) for trades of more than $5 million face value, as proposed in the original TRACE filing. Transaction reports in the high yield debt securities called the “FIPS 50” 16 will also be disseminated and will use the large volume trade dissemination cap identifier (“1 MM”) applicable to trades in high yield bonds of more than $1 million face value.

During this period, the BTRC will begin examining the impact of transaction information dissemination on liquidity. By the end of Phase I, the BTRC will recommend dissemination protocols for investment grade bonds, starting with the largest issuance size, that, when combined together, make up the top 50% (by dollar volume) of such bonds.

During the next six months of the plan (Phase II), NASD members will continue to report transactions within one hour of execution. The NASD will disseminate transaction reports of all transactions in the top 50% (by dollar volume) of investment grade bonds as determined by the NASD Board (subject to the approval of the SEC) after considering the recommendations of the BTRC.17 If applicable, these reports will include the large-volume trade dissemination cap identifiers proposed in the original TRACE filing. Transaction reports in the FIPS 50 will continue to be disseminated. The BTRC will continue to evaluate the impact of dissemination of transaction information on liquidity. By the end of Phase II, the BTRC will provide recommendations for appropriate dissemination protocols for all remaining issues eligible for public dissemination. Finally, three months after the start of Phase II, the one hour maximum time period to submit trade reports will be reduced to 15 minutes, subject to the members' ability to comply technologically and operationally.

In response to comments received regarding Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, the NASD amended its proposal to:

As noted above, as first proposed, TRACE was intended to immediately disseminate trade reports on all reported bonds except Rule 144A issues, after an initial six-month review period. Many commenters objected to immediate dissemination of transaction information for so many reported bonds. Although most commenters supported enhanced price transparency in the corporate debt market,20 many expressed concern that immediate dissemination of transaction information in less frequently traded corporate bonds could have a negative impact on the liquidity of those issues.21 Specifically, these commenters contended that immediate dissemination of transaction information on less frequently traded bonds could reduce the willingness of dealers and their customers to commit capital and assume risk positions in those securities.22 One such commenter argued that distribution of transaction information could reveal the trading patterns and intentions of market participants, making it more difficult to conduct further trades at acceptable prices. This, in turn, could result in a decline in demand and a corresponding increase in required yield for certain types of bonds, raising the overall cost of capital and decreasing the efficiency of the capital formation process.23

In light of this concern, TBMA suggested a phase-in framework designed to reduce the risk of any possible adverse effects on liquidity.24 The phase-in plan provided for dissemination of transaction information for larger, more frequently traded issues first, and smaller, less frequently traded issues later. TBMA's phase-in proposal was similar to the original TRACE proposal in its approach to the time frames in which members would be required to submit trade reports. It differed from the TRACE proposal, however, in that it proposed a phase-in schedule in which transaction data on the largest sized bonds could be displayed immediately during the first six months of the plan, with smaller sized bonds to be phased-in later. The proposal was supported by many other commenters.25

In response to these concerns and after extensive discussions, the NASD modified its proposal to adopt the phase-in schedule described in Section IV above.26 Under the phase-in schedule, the BTRC will advise the NASD Board of Governors regarding liquidity issues. During the first three months (Phase I), transaction information on publicly offered, investment grade bonds with an initial issuance size of $1 billion or greater, and the FIPS 50, will be distributed immediately. By the end of Phase I, the BTRC will recommend to the NASD Board dissemination protocols for investment grade bonds, starting with the largest issuance size that, when combined together, make up the top 50% (by dollar volume) of such bonds. During the next six months (Phase II), TRACE will disseminate reports of all transactions in the top 50% of investment grade bonds as determined by the NASD Board (subject to the approval of the SEC) after considering the recommendations of the BTRC; and transaction reports in the FIPS 50 will continue to be disseminated. By the end of Phase II, the BTRC will recommend appropriate dissemination protocols for transactions in all remaining issues eligible for public dissemination.

All recommendations made by the BTRC will be subject to approval of the NASD Board of Governors. The Board will have the authority and responsibility to determine how and at what pace to expand the public dissemination of transaction reports.

After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the NASD's revised proposal strikes an appropriate balance between commenters' concerns about liquidity and the need to make transaction information publicly available on an immediate basis. First, the phased-in approach proposed by the NASD will permit dissemination of transaction information for only the largest sized bonds first, and that distribution of transaction information for smaller sized bonds is delayed until the impact on liquidity of the larger bonds can be assessed. Second, the involvement of the BTRC, composed in part of members recommended by TBMA, should provide the industry with meaningful participation in the phase-in process.27 Third, because the recommendations of the BTRC are subject to approval by the NASD Board of Governors, the revised proposal ensures that the NASD will retain ultimate authority over and responsibility for the phase-in process, consistent with the Act and the NASD's obligations under the Commission's Order 28 and Report Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the (Act) Regarding the Nasdaq Market (“Section 21(a) Report”).29

Significantly, the revised TRACE proposal provides for trade data to be made publicly available more quickly than under the original proposal. Unlike the original proposal, which contemplated no public dissemination of transaction information during the first six months, under the revised proposal information on investment grade bonds with an initial issuance size of $1 billion or greater will be made available immediately. Distribution of information with respect to successively smaller initial issuance amounts will begin after the first three months, subject to the approval of the NASD Board, after considering the recommendations of the BTRC. On balance, the Commission believes that the immediate public availability of transaction information on the largest sized bonds, followed by the phase-in of smaller sized bonds, significantly strengthens the proposal.30

The Commission notes that the NASD has stated that the formula for phasing-in public dissemination of transaction information for bonds in Phase II may need to be reviewed by the BTRC in light of the fact that the Phase II formula will result in an overlap with Phase I securities that may reduce the number of newly disseminated bonds in Phase II. The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the NASD to build in this layer of guidance by the BTRC; and further, that it is appropriate for the BTRC, when making its recommendations to the NASD Board, to use its discretion to adjust applicable dissemination formulas in light of its assessment of the impact on liquidity of each phase of the TRACE dissemination schedule. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that the NASD Board retains ultimate authority and responsibility for these matters after considering the recommendations of the BTRC.31

In addition, the NASD plans to reduce the time frame for reporting bond trades—from one hour to 15 minutes—during Phase II of the plan.32 This will help ensure that transaction information is reported to TRACE and released to the public before it becomes “stale.” During all phases of the plan, the NASD represents that the BTRC will evaluate the technological readiness of the industry, with a view to further reducing this time frame.

Finally, the Commission believes it is significant that the revised proposal captures more information for regulatory purposes in a shorter time frame than under the original TRACE proposal. This will allow the NASD to continue to develop and refine its surveillance plan for the fixed income market.

As originally proposed, the NASD/TRACE Rules required NASD members to report their transactions in TRACE-eligible securities to Nasdaq. Nasdaq was to collect, process, and disseminate the trade reports to interested parties, and provide the information to the NASD for surveillance and other regulatory purposes.

While generally supporting increased price transparency and heightened surveillance in the OTC corporate bond market, many commenters strongly objected to Nasdaq ownership and operation of the TRACE system.33 Several commenters argued that it was an unwarranted use of regulatory power for the NASD to give Nasdaq, a for-profit, privately (and potentially publicly) owned enterprise that might compete with other corporate bond market participants, the exclusive right to collect and disseminate bond trade data.34 Other commenters acknowledged the NASD's legitimate interest as an SRO in obtaining corporate bond transaction information for surveillance, enforcement, and other regulatory purposes, but took issue with the NASD having the right to the commercial value of that data.35 Some commenters stated that the NASD should not be permitted to profit from the sale and distribution of the data, suggesting instead that fees should be collected on a cost recovery basis, or that any revenue collected should be rebated to the dealer community.36

Other commenters objected more generally to any single entity having an exclusive franchise on collection and dissemination of corporate bond transaction data.37 A few commenters proposed that the NASD limit its proposal to setting forth standards for transaction reporting and dissemination without mandating a specific provider.38 Several commenters argued that mandating a single provider of bond market data would not only give the single provider the right to monopoly profits, but also would frustrate technological innovation in the area of reporting and dissemination of market data.39

In response to comment that the NASD/TRACE Rules, as originally proposed, could lead to granting an exclusive right over bond trade data to a private competitor in the OTC bond market (i.e., a for-profit Nasdaq), the NASD submitted Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to provide that the NASD, rather than Nasdaq, will instead own and operate the TRACE facility. In Amendment No. 2, the NASD also represented that it would register with the Commission as an exclusive securities information processor (“ESIP”) on the rationale that it would be subject to Section 11A of the Act.40

Comment in response to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 was more limited than comment on the original proposal. A few commenters stated that the amendments are not an adequate response to the anti-competitive concerns raised initially, arguing that the amended proposal remains a monopoly model.41 One commenter stated that NASD ownership of TRACE creates a conflict of interest between the NASD and its members.42 This commenter stated that TRACE establishes a monopoly, and argued that if it is approved, fees for TRACE must be cost-based.43 Two commenters stated that the NASD should not select Nasdaq as its vendor for information processing, but should instead use a competitive bidding process.44 Other commenters noted that the Commission has established an Advisory Committee on Market Information 45 to examine whether the existing structure of market data collection and dissemination in the equity markets should be improved or replaced, and suggested that because TRACE is similar to existing models, the Commission should defer final action on the TRACE proposal until after the Advisory Committee issues its report.46

The NASD filed with the Commission its response to comment letters received following the publication of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 (“Response Letter”).47 In its Response Letter, the NASD stated that the TRACE Proposal does not give the NASD a monopoly over data collection, explaining that the NASD/TRACE Rules do not specify or limit the means by which members may report trades to the NASD. In regard to fee setting, the NASD stated that it expects to partially recover its costs of regulating the bond market through TRACE fees, and noted that the Act contemplates such regulatory cost recovery. The NASD explained that it is not accurate to characterize regulatory cost recovery as cross-subsidization of regulation because regulation “contributes directly to the integrity, reliability, and * * * value of, market data.” Additionally, the NASD represented that it will not sell unconsolidated data and will limit its dissemination of consolidated data to broker-dealers and to those seeking to compete in the resale of the data. Furthermore, the NASD represented that it will cease functioning as a consolidated information disseminator and limit its role to bond market regulation in the event the Advisory Committee on Market Information “develop(s) a market-driven approach to equities market data that can be applied to bond market data.”

The Commission believes Amendment Nos. 2-4 strengthen the initial proposal, and that they should address many commenters' concerns regarding competition, without compromising the goal of increased transparency and heightened surveillance in the corporate bond market. For the reasons more fully discussed below, the Commission finds that the TRACE proposal is consistent with section 15A , including section 15A(b)(6),48 and Section 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act,49 and that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by section 15A(b)(9) of the Act.50

The Commission has long believed that price transparency plays a fundamental role in promoting the fairness and efficiency of U.S. capital markets, and likewise that market surveillance is a fundamental means of promoting fairness and confidence in those markets.51 Price transparency and market surveillance go hand in hand. The key to meaningful surveillance is regulatory access to comprehensive trading information—including the information that is required for price transparency.52

To date, the NASD has not had routine access to comprehensive transaction information for the broad OTC corporate bond market, even though the NASD is responsible for conducting surveillance in and regulating that market.53 As the sole SRO responsible under the Act for regulating the OTC market, the NASD is the only SRO that can effectively use consolidated bond transaction data for regulatory purposes.

The NASD/TRACE Rules require only that NASD members trading corporate bonds in the OTC market submit transaction reports to the NASD.54 The rules exempt securities listed and traded on a national exchange.55 A few commenters outlined alternative proposals to promote price transparency in the corporate bond market.56 One commenter proposed that the NASD delete the listed securities exemption in the TRACE proposal, suggesting instead that multiple SROs should collect corporate bond transaction data and contribute to a “consolidated tape” through data linkages. This commenter further suggested that multiple SROs conduct surveillance of the corporate bond market and pass the resulting information to interested parties (i.e., the Commission, the NASD, or an SRO acting as the Designated Examining Authority for the broker-dealer involved).57 This commenter argued that such a proposal would be superior to the TRACE proposal because it would contribute greatly to “robust competition” and that, unlike the TRACE proposal, it would not unfairly discriminate between bonds listed on an exchange and bonds traded over-the-counter (“OTC”).58 Another commenter proposed a “network model,” whereby multiple competing vendors could obtain trade reports, issue market-data for corporate bonds, and share their data with SROs and clearing agencies to facilitate surveillance and processing functions.59 Another commenter suggested that TBMA sponsor a corporate bond transparency facility, arguing that such a facility would have greater access to expertise and would better serve the interests of bond market participants.60

These proposals fail to recognize that, under the Act, the NASD is the only regulator, other than the Commission itself, of the OTC market. Whereas bond transactions that take place on an exchange are regulated by that exchange, the statutory scheme contemplates that the NASD will regulate bond transactions in the OTC market.61 No other SRO has the necessary authority to conduct surveillance of the OTC corporate bond market. The NASD/TRACE Rules permit the NASD to obtain the information that it needs to better fulfill its statutory responsibility to regulate the OTC corporate bond market.62 The Commission does not believe the TRACE proposal discriminates unfairly between exchange listed and OTC corporate bonds within the meaning of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. Rather, the NASD's proposal reasonably proposes only to regulate matters within its jurisdiction.

The NASD's need for comprehensive bond transaction data to better fulfill its regulatory responsibilities cannot seriously be in dispute. Indeed, several commenters acknowledged the NASD's legitimate interest as an SRO in obtaining corporate bond transaction information for surveillance, enforcement, and other regulatory purposes.63 Accordingly, the Commission finds that the NASD/TRACE Rules are consistent with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, in that they further empower the NASD to fulfill its statutory obligations in the OTC corporate bond market to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and further that they do not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

As a general matter, commenters did not object to the NASD/TRACE Rules authorizing the NASD to collect corporate bond trade data for regulatory purposes. Rather, commenters were more concerned that it was anti-competitive to permit the NASD to give Nasdaq or another single entity the exclusive right to market the data.64 The Commission believes that the NASD's amendment giving the NASD control over TRACE, in lieu of Nasdaq, addresses these concerns. The NASD is less likely to be viewed as a potential competitor than Nasdaq. Unlike Nasdaq, the NASD intends to remain a membership organization and has no plans to operate an organized market. With regard to commenters' concerns that the TRACE proposal confers a regulatory monopoly with regard to the data, the Commission believes that these concerns are overstated because the NASD is not an exclusive securities information processor by virtue of operating the TRACE system. Third parties can obtain bond transaction data, either from the NASD or directly from broker-dealers, and the proposal does not prevent these third parties from marketing the data. Furthermore, the Act has in place regulatory safeguards to prevent the NASD from taking unfair advantage of its position as a consolidator of market information. Pursuant to sections 15A and 19(b) of the Act, the Commission has authority to oversee the NASD's provision of data to third parties, including the fees that the NASD proposes to charge for the data, as well as claims of unfair denial of access.65

To achieve its goal of consolidating bond market data for regulatory purposes, the NASD/TRACE Rules require NASD members to ensure that the NASD receives transaction reports in a timely fashion.66 The rules do not prevent intermediaries from collecting the data from NASD members for transmission to the NASD.67 Moreover, the rules do not establish any exclusive rights to that information. Vendors are expected to offer value-added services, incorporating data they receive from the NASD.68 NASD members that provide the data are free to sell or give the same information to information vendors. Once required to make trade data available in corporate bonds, bond dealers will have little remaining reason to withhold this data from vendors. Those vendors in turn are free to offer “unconsolidated” information products in direct competition with the NASD.69 At the same time, the data available from the NASD will provide a reference point for measuring the accuracy and completeness of private vendors' data streams. The Commission believes that actual or potential competition from providers of unconsolidated data, some of which may include data unavailable to the NASD, will deter the NASD from charging excessive rates for consolidated data. Furthermore, the NASD's distribution of the raw data will provide competing vendors with opportunities to package the information in forms that will be useful to institutions and retail investors. Unlike the equity markets, where pricing information is easily interpreted, in the bond market, information may need to be packaged with ancillary information and analytical tools to be fully valuable to users. The mandatory transaction reporting to the TRACE system will almost certainly create competitive opportunities for market products designed to analyze and interpret the data.

Some commenters argued that TRACE creates a monopoly, and therefore, the NASD's fees for TRACE would almost certainly exceed its costs.70 Other commenters suggested that the NASD use a competitive bidding process to select a technology vendor to keep costs down. Given the opportunities that exist for other vendors and market participants to obtain the data, either from the NASD or directly from broker-dealers, and compete with the NASD to collect and disseminate data, the Commission does not agree that TRACE fees will necessarily exceed the NASD's costs. Even in the absence of such competition, the Act limits the ability of the NASD to charge unreasonable fees for consolidated information. The NASD proposed in Amendment No. 2 to voluntarily register as an ESIP on the rationale that, by doing so, it would become subject to certain additional regulatory safeguards set forth in section 11A(c) of the Act. The Commission finds, however, that such registration would not place meaningful additional regulatory requirements on the NASD, as the Act provides plenary authority to regulate the information processing and dissemination activities of the NASD, including the NASD's fee structure. Furthermore, by virtue of its status as an SRO, the NASD is subject to the requirements of section 15A(b)(5) 71 and (b)(6) of the Act to deliver market information on terms that are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory.72 Moreover, as an SRO, the NASD will establish charges and fees for TRACE by submitting a rule filing with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act. When the Commission reviews fees to be charged for market information in the context of a proposed rule change under section 19(b) of the Act, the Commission must consider whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act. In the context of a section 19(b) filing by the NASD to establish fees and charges for TRACE, section 15A(b)(5) of the Act will be particularly important. Specifically, section 15A(b)(5) requires the “equitable allocation of reasonable” fees charged to any person using the facilities operated or controlled by the NASD, and as such requires that the proposed fees be reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory.73 The Commission believes that purchasers of consolidated TRACE data are users of the TRACE facility for purposes of considering whether a section 19(b) rule filing establishing fees and charges for TRACE is consistent with the Act.

Further, in section 11A(a)(1)(C), Congress found that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure: (1) The economically efficient execution of securities transactions; (2) fair competition among brokers and dealers; and (3) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations and transactions in securities. The NASD/TRACE Rules further these goals by increasing the amount of public information available in the corporate bond market. Without the availability of public information, participation in this market has been limited to well-established participants who are able to devote significant resources to obtain the necessary information. By increasing public availability of information about bond prices, the NASD/TRACE Rules may encourage greater participation in the market by brokers, dealers, and investors, which will contribute to deeper markets and increased competition. The Commission believes that the TRACE proposal is tailored to achieve the important goals of increased price transparency and enhanced market surveillance in the corporate bond market; and despite some commenters' assertions to the contrary, the Commission believes that the TRACE proposal is not so broad as to eliminate the opportunity for others to compete in the marketing and dissemination of corporate bond data.

Additionally, the Commission does not agree with commenters that bond market transparency should be deferred to await the outcome of the Commission's Advisory Committee on Market Information, which is currently studying whether the traditional model for market data collection and dissemination is still appropriate. Should the Advisory Committee on Market Information conclude that an approach substantially different from the TRACE approach provides a superior way to assure price transparency in the corporate bond market, the Commission would consider such a conclusion when evaluating any NASD amendments to TRACE.74 After careful consideration of commenters' concerns, the Commission concludes that the TRACE proposal is consistent with section 15A(b)(9) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a registered securities association not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

As originally proposed, the NASD/TRACE Rules included a mandatory trade comparison feature. Several commenters objected to the mandatory comparison feature of the TRACE proposal, arguing that price transparency and trade processing issues should be addressed separately.75 A few argued that the NSCC and DTC comparison framework works well and that the NASD's proposed system was neither necessary nor efficient.76 Other commenters objected specifically to Nasdaq having an exclusive franchise over the provision of comparison services for corporate bond trades.77 Some commenters raised concerns that inserting the TRACE comparison proposal between the trade execution and clearance and settlement functions would hinder the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle.78

In response to these concerns, the NASD, in Amendment No. 2, deleted the mandatory trade comparison feature, but required TRACE participants to provide the same data on corporate bond transactions they provide to their clearing agency within the same time frame. Several commenters, in response to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, objected to the “optional comparison feature” of the amended proposal, on the grounds that it could lead to confusion in the industry.79 Additionally, several commenters urged the NASD to delete the requirement in proposed Rule 6231(a) that members report to TRACE the same information they report to their clearing agency.80

The Commission recognizes the value of crosschecking the trade data submitted by the reporting dealer with information from the counterparty. Nonetheless, this process should be done in the most efficient manner possible. Commenters stated that submitting clearing information to the NASD would add significantly to a participant's burden in complying with the Rules, without providing the NASD any information it could not obtain from the participant's clearing agency. Accordingly, the NASD filed Amendment No. 4 to delete this requirement, and the Commission is accelerating approval of that amendment as more fully described in Section VI below. In this regard, the NASD has indicated that it intends to address this issue by amending Rule 6230(b) to require both the buy and sell sides of a member-to-member transaction to report to TRACE.81 Such a proposed rule change will be subject to notice and comment under section 19(b) of the Act.The Commission finds that the NASD's amendments to scale back the TRACE proposal to delete all provisions concerning trade comparison and submission of clearing information addresses commenters' concerns about a single comparison processor. Furthermore, because the amended proposal no longer has any direct bearing on clearance and settlement, the Commission believes that the changes should eliminate any concerns that TRACE could seriously affect the industry's move to T+1 settlement.

As originally proposed, the NASD/TRACE Rules did not require members to include yield information in their trade reports. Commenters stated that yield information would be useful, and suggested that the NASD specify how yield should be calculated.82 In response, the NASD amended the NASD/TRACE Rules to require reporting of yield, and specified that yield should be calculated in accordance with Rule 10b-10 under the Act.83 We believe that the NASD has made a reasonable response to the comments, and that inclusion of yield information will enhance the usefulness of the transaction reports.84

Several commenters suggested that the NASD significantly expand the scope of the TRACE proposal. Some argued that the proposal should accommodate fixed income instruments other than corporate debt securities, to avoid forcing the industry to support multiple systems for similar products.85 These comments generally were premised on a concern that the proposed mandatory trade comparison feature would result in needless duplication of effort and possible inconsistency with other trade comparison systems. The NASD has addressed this concern by deleting the trade comparison feature of its filing.

In response to the NASD's amendments, some commenters argued that the NASD should incorporate municipal bond requirements as well as corporate bond requirements into a single format.86 The Commission does not disagree that a single-format approach to fixed income transparency could have merit; however, it believes the current proposal takes a reasonable first step towards providing public investors with current transaction information on corporate bonds in a uniform format, consistent with the purposes of the Act. The Commission cannot disapprove the current proposal simply because a different or more extensive approach might also have been consistent with the Act.

Finally, one commenter, responding to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, criticized the NASD/TRACE Rules for failing to distinguish between real-time and historical data.87 This commenter stated that an entity other than the NASD could be the distributor of historical data. In addition, this commenter urged that final NASD/TRACE Rules recognize the economic interest of broker-dealers that report this data to the NASD.88 In this regard, the Commission understands that the treatment of historical data has been the subject of negotiations between the NASD and TBMA. Preliminarily, the Commission believes that there is no basis in the Act to distinguish between real-time and historical data collected by an SRO. However, because the NASD/TRACE Rules do not address this issue, it is not addressed here.

Some commenters argued that the proposal is not specific enough to permit informed comment.89 One commenter stated that the filing did not comport with Form 19b-4 under the Act because it failed to explain the competitive implications of the proposal.90

The Commission believes that the NASD's original notice and subsequent amendments were sufficiently detailed as to afford commenters a meaningful opportunity to comment on their impact on competition. The notice and amendments described the scope of TRACE, the key reporting requirements, and the general schedule for implementation. The Commission raised the issue of competition in its notice by specifically asking whether the method of trade report dissemination is appropriate, and whether there are ways to improve the proposed trade reporting system. The Commission received 39 comments on the original proposal, which was published well over one year ago, and 13 comments on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, which were published in November 2000. In fact, Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 were submitted by the NASD in part to address certain competitive concerns raised by comments on the original proposal. Further, in the original notice, the Commission sought comment on whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, thus invoking sections 3(f), 15A(b)(6), and 15A(b)(9) of the Act regarding burdens on competition and non-discrimination.91

A few commenters pointed to problems with the text of the rule. For example, one commenter stated that the proposal is internally inconsistent.92 That commenter argued that the narrative of the original proposal and the proposed rules themselves are not consistent. For example, the narrative described several types of securities that would not be reportable, but the proposed rules did not define the securities subject to reporting in such a way that excluded those securities. The amended proposal addresses this issue by including in the NASD/TRACE Rules the types of securities that are excluded from reporting.

Several commenters argued that the proposal should use open architecture and competitively driven technologies rather than a single, proprietary service.93 These comments do not appear to take into account the NASD's need for central collection of the data to create a comprehensive surveillance system. As discussed above, TRACE allows for alternative methods for submitting this information to the NASD, and does nothing to prevent dissemination of this information independently of the NASD. Moreover, as noted above, nothing in the amended NASD/TRACE Rules prevents vendors and other market participants from receiving unconsolidated information from NASD members or from packaging consolidated data from the NASD and marketing that information in direct competition with the NASD and others. Further, to the extent these comments were directed towards the proposed mandatory comparison service, the Commission believes that the NASD's decision to delete all provisions relating to trade comparison effectively responds to such objections.

Several commenters raised concerns about the original proposed timeframe for implementing the NASD/TRACE Rules.94 Many of the issues commenters raised regarding preparations for Y2K, decimalization, and OATS are no longer a concern. The NASD/TRACE Rules will be implemented 180 days after the date the NASD provides technical specifications to its members, in accordance with the phase-in schedule discussed above. The Commission believes that this timeframe will allow ample time for NASD members and other bond market participants to prepare for TRACE reporting, and permit the NASD to more fully test TRACE technology.

In response to Amendments 2 and 3, one commenter continued to express concerns about the revised implementation schedule for TRACE.95 This commenter stated that members will be unable to meet the requirement to report transactions within 15 minutes after trade execution, scheduled to take effect on December 31, 2001. In this connection, the Commission notes that there is no 15-minute requirement in the rules at this time.96 The Commission will have the opportunity to reconsider this issue if and when the NASD submits a rule change to implement a 15-minute reporting requirement.

Several commenters addressed the issue of fees, urging that fees be cost-based and account for costs incurred by NASD members who are required to report.97 The Commission notes that the NASD/TRACE Rules as proposed do not contain proposed fees for distributing reported data. Thus, this approval order does not address the issue of fees. As noted above, the NASD is required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission prior to imposing fees, and the Commission must find that those fees are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory under the Act.98

Section 3(f) of the Act requires that the Commission consider whether the NASD's proposal will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.99 As described above, the NASD proposal followed a Commission staff review of the debt market. Specifically, in 1998 Commission staff reviewed the market for debt securities in the U.S., with particular emphasis on the state of price transparency. One of the chief goals of the review was to identify specific inadequacies in the availability of pricing information in the various market segments. The review focused on five segments of the debt market: U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency Bonds; mortgage-backed securities and other structured products; corporate bonds; municipal bonds; and foreign sovereign bonds. Commission staff interviewed over thirty organizations, including trade associations, SROs, government agencies, interdealer brokers, information vendors, bond dealers, institutional investors, clearing agencies, and electronic trading system operators. The staff concluded that the quality of pricing information available in the market for government bonds was good, but that information available on high yield corporate bonds was relatively poor, and that pricing information on investment grade corporate bonds fell between high yield corporate bonds and government bonds in terms of quality.

The staff concluded that real-time transaction reporting for corporate bonds, in addition to improving the transparency of the corporate debt market, would also provide a sound basis for surveillance of that market. As a result of the findings of the review, Chairman Levitt requested the NASD to undertake the current TRACE initiative.

The Commission believes that the NASD/TRACE Rules represent a reasonable effort by the NASD to enhance the quality of the OTC corporate debt market by providing more information to investors and other market participants, thus increasing overall market transparency. While the NASD/TRACE Rules provide for a centralized collection and dissemination of bond transaction data, this centralized collection is needed to create a complete surveillance database. It does not create an exclusive means of collecting and distributing that information to investors. The NASD/TRACE Rules also will improve surveillance of the OTC corporate debt market. Moreover, they may create an opportunity for vendors and broker-dealers to market analytical tools to interpret the data. In addition, the Commission believes that the NASD/TRACE Rules proposal should promote competition and capital formation by encouraging increased participation in the corporate bond market by broker, dealers, and investors. Finally, the Commission believes that broad public availability of transaction information will increase the fairness and efficiency of the debt markets and thereby foster investor confidence in those markets. Enhanced investor confidence, in turn, may yield increased investor participation in the markets, which in turn would lead to greater liquidity in the markets.

The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 4 to the proposal prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. First, in response to comment, Amendment No. 4 deletes proposed Rule 6231(a) which required NASD members to report to TRACE the same transaction information that the member provides to its registered clearing agency for clearance and settlement, by the time the member transmits that information to its clearing agency.

Second, Amendment No. 4 withdraws the NASD's earlier undertaking to register as a securities information processor. As discussed supra, the Commission believes that the Act provides it with substantially similar oversight of the NASD's operation of TRACE whether it registers as a securities information processor or not.

In addition, Amendment No. 4 adds language to Rule 6260(a) that provides for the NASD to immediately disseminate transaction information on the “FIPS 50.” 100 This language was inadvertently omitted from Rule 6260(a) in the NASD's amended proposal; however, the language was included in the notice of the original proposal and in the description of transaction dissemination contained in the NASD's Amendment No. 2.

The proposed changes to the definition of “TRACE-eligible securities” in Amendment No. 4 clarify the rules by inserting exclusions from reporting that were contained in the narrative of the original filing. Amendment No. 4 also narrows the reporting requirement so as not to include certain investment grade securities issued pursuant to section 4(2) of the 1933 Act, but not sold or traded under Rule 144A. The Commission believes that this change will not substantially alter the scope of reporting required under the NASD/TRACE Rules.

Finally, the revised implementation schedule provides 180 days time for the industry to prepare for TRACE after technical specifications are made available, rather than 180 days after Commission approval. This change responds to commenters suggestions, and the Commission believes that commenters would likely welcome the additional time to prepare for TRACE.

Other changes effected by Amendment No. 4 are technical in nature and were added for clarification only.

For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with sections 15A(b)(6) and 19(b)(2) of the Act, to accelerate approval of Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. 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. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-99-65 and should be submitted by February 20, 2001.

For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-99-65), as amended, be and hereby is approved, and that Amendment No. 4 thereto is approved on an accelerated basis.

This statement amends Part S of the Statement of the Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority which covers the Social Security Administration (SSA). Chapter S2 covers the Deputy Commissioner, Operations. Notice is given that Subchapter S2N, the Office of Public Service and Operations Support (OPSOS), is being amended to reflect the establishment of the Division of Systems Security and Program Integrity (S2NE) under the Associate Commissioner for Public Service and Operations Support. The remaining divisions in OPSOS are being retitled to more accurately reflect their functions. The functions in two of the three existing divisions are being realigned. The new material and changes are as follows:

D. The “Division of Service Delivery and Program Policy” (S2NA) to the “Division of Program Policy and Operations” (S2NA).

E. The “Division of Operations Management” (S2NB) to the “Division of Operations Analysis and Customer Service” (S2NB).

F. The “Division of Resource and Management Information” (S2NC) to the “Division of Resource Management and Employee Services” (S2NC).

G. The Division of Systems Security and Program Integrity (S2NE).

C. The Immediate Office of the Associate Commissioner for Public Service and Operations Support (S2N): Delete the final sentence, i.e., “Coordinates and implements a comprehensive DCO nationwide program to focus on systems security and programmatic fraud.”

D. The “Division of Service Delivery and Program Policy” (S2NA) to the “Division of Program Policy and Operations” (S2NA).

Functional statement numbers 7 through 12.

E. The “Division of Operations Management” (S2NB) to the “Division of Operations Analysis and Customer Service” (S2NB).

Functional statement number 5.

5. Participates with appropriate policy components in SSA to provide clear, accurate and timely notices to the public and to fully utilize automation to reduce the need for manually prepared notices.

6. Develops and recommends to DCO standards and practices for national and international delivery of services. Plans, implements and evaluates the full range of SSA's service to the public.

7. Establishes service delivery policies. Develops and evaluates standards for measuring service to the public to ensure that quality, efficient and compassionate service is provided.

8. Plans, conducts and evaluates public information/referral programs to ensure Agency and other public and private services are effectively provided to the community within the guidelines and direction provided by the Agency. Ensures SSA's public affairs/information efforts are implemented effectively and efficiently within DCO components.

9. Establishes policies and develops criteria on field office accessibility (hours of service, size of field offices, type and location of services, etc.).

10. Directs the planning, analysis and evaluation of field office structure and develops innovative concepts for the future role of DCO components, including improvements in service.

F. The “Division of Resource and Management Information” (S2NC) to the “Division of Resource Management and Employee Services” (S2NC).

G. The Division of Systems Security and Program Integrity (S2NE).

1. Coordinates and implements a comprehensive DCO nationwide program to focus on systems security and programmatic fraud.

2. Conducts nationwide analyses and studies to identify potential problems and develops guidelines/procedures to ensure an effective and efficient Operations security and integrity program.

3. Develops and maintains a comprehensive national program to focus attention on combating beneficiary and recipient fraud and develops recommendations for improving operational policy, procedures and internal controls to prevent recurrence.

4. Assesses security vulnerabilities. Evaluates overall plans and proposals for major Agency and interagency security projects and provides analysis for use in security program planning, implementation, evaluation and modification efforts.

5. Implements national level guidance in Agency standards, guidelines, or policies for major security programs.

6. Provides direction and coordination to the activities of the Regional Centers for Security and Integrity.

7. Ensures that training on security and program integrity is available and maintains a continuing awareness program.

8. Develops or interprets general policy direction for application on an organization-wide basis and conducts oversight reviews on the effectiveness of programs and practices.

9. Advises top-level DCO executives and security managers on new developments and advances in security techniques and keeps them informed of sensitive issues regarding beneficiary/recipient fraud, employee fraud and systems abuses.

10. Creates workflows and processes with systemic safeguards to prevent errors and ensure a full audit trail for automated and paper products.

11. Provides direction and coordination on sensitive cases involving employee fraud and abuse, including providing guidance to Operations executives regarding the appropriate disciplinary action.

12. Serves as Operations representative on the Agency's Critical Infrastructure Response Team responsible for responding to external and internal threats to the Agency's systems architecture.

13. Develops Operations systems access matrixes for new and/or existing applications to support the Agency's policy of least privilege access to SSA's various computer systems and monitors the profiles created to ensure the level of access is appropriate based on job duties and function of the application.

14. Develops and coordinates nationwide analysis and monitoring by the Regional Centers for Security and Integrity of the user accounts established within SSA's network systems architecture to identify vulnerabilities and monitor compliance.

15. Provides direction and guidance to Operations executives regarding security and privacy issues in connection with advances in the areas of electronic commerce, internet applications and intranet websites.

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.

Docket Number: OST-1995-297.

Date Filed: December 11, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: January 2, 2001.

Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 41101, 14 CFR Part 377 and subpart Q, applies for renewal of segment 4 of its 3 certificate for Route 389, authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between the coterminal points New York, New York/Newark, New Jersey and Miami, Florida and the coterminal points Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8515.

Date Filed: December 11, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: January 2, 2001.

Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 41101, 14 CFR Part 377 and subpart Q, applies for renewal of its certificate for Route 583, authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between San Jose, California, and Tokyo, Japan, as well as renewal of its allocation of six associated weekly frequencies.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8516.

Date Filed: December 11, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: January 2, 2001.

Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 41101, 14 CFR Part 377 and subpart Q, applies for renewal of segments 1, 2, and 3 of its certificate for Route 602, authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail from points in the United States to London and other points in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8536.

Date Filed: December 12, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: January 3, 2001.

Description: Application of Potomac Air, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 41102 and subpart B, applies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail.

The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.

Docket Number: OST-2000-7559.

Date Filed: December 7, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 19, 2000.

Description: Amended Application of Gemini Air Cargo, Inc. pursuant to DOT Order 2000-9-24 and the Notice Setting Procedural Schedule for New Entrant Applicants, Dated November 24, 2000, Gemini amends its certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between points in the United States, on the one hand, and Manaus, Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Recife, Porto Alegre, Belem, Belo Horizonte, and Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, on the other; and beyond Brazil to Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile.

Docket Number: OST-2000-7559.

Date Filed: December 7, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 19, 2000.

Description: Amended Application of Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. pursuant to the Department's November 24, 2000 Notice, applies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, and Manaus, Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Recife, Porto Alegre, Belem, Belo Horizonte, and Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, on the other, via intermediate points and beyond Brazil to Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. Evergreen requests in addition (i) an initial allocation of seven weekly frequencies to implement its new Brazil service and (ii) authority to integrate U.S.-Brazil authority with Evergreen's other all-cargo certificate and exemption authority and to commingle traffic on services conducted pursuant to such authority, consistent with applicable agreements between the U.S. and foreign countries. This amended application supersedes the application Evergreen previously filed in this docket on October 12, 2000.

Docket Number: OST-2000-7559.

Date Filed: December 7, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 19, 2000.

Description: Amended Application of Atlas Air, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 and 14 CFR 302.201 et seq., renews its request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Atlas to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, and Manaus, Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Recife, Porto Alegre, Belem, Belo Horizonte and Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, on the other, via intermediate points and beyond Brazil to Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile. Atlas seeks authorization to integrate this authority with its other all-cargo certificate and exemption authority, and to commingle traffic and services conducted pursuant to such authority, to the extent consistent with applicable agreements between the United States and foreign countries. Additionally, Atlas requests U.S. designation under the 1989 Air Transport Services Agreement between the United States and Brazil, as amended, and an award of ten weekly U.S.-Brazil all-cargo wide-body frequencies recently declared available for assignment to the fourth designated U.S. cargo airline.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8437.

Date Filed: December 8, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 29, 2000.

Description: Amendment #1 to the Application of Aerotransporte de Carga Union, S.A. de C.V., request authority to operate charters pursuant to 14 CFR 212.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8505.

Date Filed: December 8, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 29, 2000.

Description: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 and 41108 and subpart B, applies for renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity for Route 585, which authorizes Delta to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between the terminal point Los Angeles, California, and the terminal point Tokyo, Japan. Delta further applies for renewal of its allocation of six weekly frequencies to conduct its Los Angeles-Tokyo services.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8506.

Date Filed: December 8, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 29, 2000.

Description: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 and 41108 and subpart B, applies for renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity for Route 586, which authorizes Delta to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between the terminal point Portland, Oregon, and the terminal point Nagoya, Japan. Delta further applies for renewal of its allocation of seven weekly frequencies to conduct United States-Nagoya services.

The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8413.

Date Filed: November 28, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 19, 2000.

Description: Application of United Air Lines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41101, 14 CFR parts 201, 302 and subpart B, applies for renewal to the extent necessary, of its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Route 588 authorizing services between Chicago, Illinois and Tokyo, Japan.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8437.

Date Filed: November 29, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 20, 2000.

Description: Application of Aerotransporte de Carga Union, S.A. de C.V. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41302, parts 211, 302 and subpart B, requests a foreign air carrier permit authorizing it to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Mexico, on the one hand, and a point or points in the United States, on the other hand.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8445.

Date Filed: November 30, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 21, 2000.

Description: Application of Polar Air Cargo, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41101, 14 CFR parts 201, 302 and subpart B, applies for renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity for Route 696 authorizing services between the U.S. and Brazil.

Docket Number: OST-2000-8447.

Date Filed: December 1, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: December 22, 2000.

Description: Application of Santa Barbara Airlines, C.A. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41305, 14 CFR part 211, and subpart B, applies for a Foreign Air Carrier permit to be issued under 49 U.S.C. 41302 authorizing it to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of passengers, property and mail between a point or points in Venezuela and a point or points in the United States of America, and in on and off route charter services as may be authorized pursuant to part 212 of the Department's regulations.

Central Midland Railway Company (CMRC), a noncarrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate a 244.5-mile line of railroad owned by Missouri Central Railroad Company (Missouri), between Vigus, MO (milepost 19.0), and Pleasant Hill, MO (milepost 263.5), including trackage rights over 33.5 miles of Union Pacific Railroad Company between Vigus (milepost 19.0) and Rock Island Junction, MO (milepost 10.3), and between Pleasant Hill (milepost 263.5) and Leeds Junction, MO (milepost 288.3). CMRC has entered into an operating agreement with Missouri permitting CMRC to operate the lines of Missouri.

The transaction was scheduled to become effective on January 9, 2001 (7 days after the exemption was filed).

If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33988, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John Broadley, John H. Broadley & Associates, P.C., 1054 31st St., NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20007.

Board decisions and notices are available on our website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.