34756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted by July 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be

submitted to Ledia Esther Bernal,

OSHRC Clearance Officer, Occupational

Safety and Health Review Commission,

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor,

Washington, DC 20036–3419. They may

also be sent by facsimile to (202) 606–

5390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the information collection are

available for inspection at the address

above. They will be mailed to persons

who request copies by telephoning

Ledia Esther Bernal at (202) 606–5390.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission (OSHRC)

published a rule in the Federal Register

dated August 14, 1995 establishing the

‘‘E–Z Trial’’ program. The rule was

subsequently amended to eliminate the

sunset provisions in the original rule

and to revise the procedural rules

governing the ‘‘E–Z Trial’’ program

effective July 31, 1997. We are

evaluating the program as modified

effective July 31, 1997. The evaluation

will involve surveying employers and

employer representatives regarding their

satisfaction with the fairness and

efficiency of the process. The evaluation

will also analyze data on the rate at

which ‘‘E–Z Trial’’ cases go to a hearing,

and on the length and cost of hearings.

Finally, the evaluation will study the

cycle times of these cases as compared

to those of conventional cases.

Information will also be gathered from

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) staff and from

the Solicitor of Labor.

II. Current Action

This notice requests comment on the

proposed instruments to be used in

connection with the evaluation.

Type of Review: Regular Submission

(new).

Title: Evaluation of ‘‘E–Z Trial.

OMB Number: New.

Affected Public: Employers and/or

their representatives, labor

organizations and staff of the Office of

the Solicitor of Labor who have been

involved in cases with the Review

Commission.

Frequency: Once.

Total Respondents: 100.

Average Time per Response: 45

minutes.

Estimated Total Reporting burden: 75

hours.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total Operation and Maintenance

costs: 0.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request.

Comments will become a matter of

public record.

Patricia A. Randle,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00–13558 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–U

PRESIDIO TRUST

Letterman Complex, The Presidio of

San Francisco, Notice of approval of

Record of Decision for the Final

Environmental Impact Statement and

Planning Guidelines

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Notice of Approval of Record of

Decision.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–90 as amended),

and the regulations promulgated by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40

CFR 1505.2), the Presidio Trust (Trust)

has prepared and approved a Record of

Decision (ROD) for the Final

Environmental Impact Statement and

Planning Guidelines for New

Development and Uses on 23 Acres

within the Letterman Complex (FEIS),

The Presidio of San Francisco, San

Francisco, California (Presidio). The

FEIS is a supplement to the 1994 Final

General Management Plan Amendment

(GMPA) EIS for the Presidio. The ROD

documents the decision and rationale

for selecting a development alternative

for the 23-acre site in compliance with

the mandates of the Presidio Trust Act

and as guided by the GMPA. The ROD

is a concise statement of the decision,

alternatives considered, the nature of

public involvement, and mitigating

measures developed to avoid or

minimize environmental impacts.

Comments received on the FEIS and

responses are also attached to the ROD.

DATES: The Trust has selected for

implementation Alternative 5, the

Digital Arts Center (identified as the

proposed action in the FEIS), as the

development alternative for the 23-acre

site, and will implement the selected

proposal as soon as practicable. This

alternative and five other alternatives

were fully examined in the Draft EIS

that was publicly circulated and filed

with the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) on April 23,

1999 (64 FR 23296–97) and the FEIS

that was publicly circulated and filed

with the EPA on March 17, 2000 (65 FR

14558). The Presidio Trust Board of

Directors reviewed and considered the

ROD after an extended no-action period,

and authorized the Trust’s Executive

Director to finalize and approve the

ROD, which was signed on May 24,

2000.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC: The

approved ROD is available for viewing

on the Internet by clicking on ‘‘Library’’

and then ‘‘Postings’’ at the following

website: http://www.presidiotrust.gov.

Additionally, copies of the ROD are

available by writing or calling: The

Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San

Francisco, CA 94129–0052, Phone: 415–

561–5300; Fax: 415–561–5315.

The ROD is also available for review

at:

The Presidio Trust Library, 34 Graham

Street, San Francisco, CA 94129,

Phone: 415–561–5300.

William Penn Mott, Jr. Visitor Center

(Presidio) (open 7 days), Montgomery

Street, Main Post, San Francisco, CA

94129, Phone: 415–561–4323.

GGNRA Park Headquarters, Building

201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA

94123, Phone: 415–561–4720.

San Francisco Main Library,

Government Information Center, Civic

Center, San Francisco, CA 94102,

Phone: 415–557–4500.

San Francisco Library, Presidio Branch,

3150 Sacramento Street, San

Francisco, CA 94115, Phone: 415–

292–2155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Pelka, NEPA Compliance Coordinator,

The Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street,

P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA

94129–0052. Telephone 415–561–5300.

Dated: May 24, 2000.

Karen A. Cook,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–13508 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–4R–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 206(4)–3, SEC File No.

270–218, OMB Control No. 3235–0242; Rule

206(4)–4, SEC File No. 270–304, OMB

Control No. 3235–0345.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34757

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collections of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit these existing

collections of information to the Office

of Management and Budget for

extension and approval.

Rule 206(4)–3, which is entitled

‘‘Cash Payments for Client

Solicitations,’’ provides restrictions on

cash payments for client solicitations.

The rule requires that an adviser pay all

solicitors’ fees pursuant to a written

agreement. When an adviser will

provide only impersonal advisory

services to the prospective client, the

rule imposes no disclosure

requirements. When the solicitor is

affiliated with the adviser and the

adviser will provide individualized

services, the solicitor must, at the time

of the solicitation, indicate to

prospective clients that he is affiliated

with the adviser. When the solicitor is

not affiliated with the adviser and the

adviser will provide individualized

services, the colitor must, at the time of

the solicitation, provide the prospective

client with a copy of the adviser’s

brochure and a disclosure document

containing information specified in rule

206(4)–3. The information rule 206(4)–

3 requires is necessary to inform

advisory clients about the nature of the

solicitor’s financial interest in the

recommendation so they may consider

the solicitor’s potential bias, and to

protect investors against solicitation

activities being carried out in a manner

inconsistent with the adviser’s fiduciary

duty to clients. Rule 206(4)–3 is

applicable to all registered investment

advisers. The Commission believes that

approximately 1,588 of these advisers

have cash referral fee arrangements. The

rule requires approximately 7.04 burden

hours per year adviser and results in a

total of approximately 11,180 total

burden hours (7.04 × 1,588) for all

advisers.

Rule 206(4)–4, which is entitled

‘‘Financial and Disciplinary Information

that Investment Advisers Must Disclose

to Clients,’’ requires advisers to disclose

certain financial and disciplinary

information to clients. The disclosure

requirements in rule 206(4)–4 are

designed so that clients will have

information about an adviser’s financial

condition and disciplinary events that

may be material to an evaluation of the

adviser’s integrity or ability to meet

contractual commitments to clients. We

estimate that approximately 1,118

advisers are subject to this rule. The rule

requires approximately 7.5 burden

hours per year per adviser and amounts

to approximately 8,385 total burden

hours (7.5 × 1,118) for all advisers.

The estimates of burden hours set

forth above are made solely for the

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction

Act and are not derived from a

comprehensive or even representative

survey or study of the cost of SEC rules

and forms.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given

to comments and suggestions submitted

in writing within 60 days of this

publication.

Please direct your written comments

to Michael E. Bartell, Associate

Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13492 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 17f–2(a); SEC File No.

270–34; OMB Control No. 3235–0034.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collection of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit this existing collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for extension

and approval.

• Rule 17f–2(a) Fingerprinting

Requirements for Securities

Professionals

Rule 17f–2(a) requires that securities

professionals be fingerprinted. This

requirement serves to identify security

risk personnel, to allow an employer to

make fully informed employment

decisions, and to deter possible

wrongdoers from seeking employment

in the securities industry. Partners,

directors, officers, and employees of

exchanges, broker, dealers, transfer

agents, and clearing agencies are

included.

It is estimated that approximately

10,000 respondents will submit

fingerprint cards. It is also estimated

that each respondent will submit 55

fingerprint cards. The staff estimates

that the average number of hours

necessary to comply with the Rule 17f–

2(a) is one-half hour. The total burden

is 275,000 hours for respondents, based

upon past submissions. The average cost

per hour is approximately $50.

Therefore, the total cost of compliance

for respondents is $13,750,000.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utlity;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s

estimates for the curden of the proposed

collection of information; (c) ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on

respondends, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Consideration will be given to

comments and suggestions submitted in

writing within 60 days of this

publication.

Please direct your written comments

to Michael E. Barrett, Associated

Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Secretary and

Exchange Commission. 450 5th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: May 23, 2000.

Margarett H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13528 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M