20154 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Notices 

56See NASD Notice to Members 94–62 (August 

1994) and the comments submitted thereto; 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40511 (Sept. 

30, 1998), 63 FR 54169 (Oct. 8, 1998) (soliciting 

comments on SR–NASD–97–61) and comments 

submitted thereto. NASD withdrew SR–NASD–97–

61 when it filed SR–NASD–2003–141. 

It should be noted that in its earlier response to 

comments, NASD provided additional guidance on 

some of these issues. NASD addressed comments 

on contemporaneous cost by amending the 

Proposed Interpretation to provide that the meaning 

of ‘‘contemporaneous’’ turns upon whether the 

transaction was close enough in time to be 

reasonably reflected in the security’s market price. 

NASD also addressed comments on ‘‘market maker’’

status by stating that it adopted the term ‘‘market 

maker’’ as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Act for 

purposes of the proposal and that it will apply the 

statutory definition without broadening the limits 

imposed by current legal precedent. 

57 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). In approving this 

proposed rule change, the Commission has 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

58See e.g., F.B. Horner & Assocs. v. SEC, 994 F.2d 

61 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Barnett v. SEC, 319 F.2d 

340 (8th Cir. 1963) (absent evidence to the contrary, 

the Commission is entitled to consider a brokerdealer’s contemporaneous cost as evidence of 

current market price)); In the Matter of Alstead, 

Dempsey & Co., 47 S.E.C. 1034, 1984 SEC LEXIS 

1847 (April 5, 1984); In the Matter of DMR 

Securities, Inc., 47 S.E.C. 350, 1980 SEC LEXIS 1071 

(July 21, 1980); see also Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 24368 (April 21, 1987), 52 FR 15575 

(April 29, 1987) (notice to broker-dealers 

concerning disclosure requirements for mark-ups 

on zero-coupon securities). 

59NASD similarly provided a practical response 

to requests for clarification of news that may have 

an effect on the perceived value of a debt security. 

NASD clarified that such news may include 

information about other issuers, but drew an 

appropriate line by stating that dealers may not rely 

on news that is not broadly disseminated to the 

public because of the limited market impact of such 

information. NASD also responded reasonably to 

requests for the restoration of the ‘‘size’’ proposal, 

in light of the customer protection concerns it 

identified. 

60For example, NASD took a reasonable position 

stating that is adopts the statutory definition of 

market maker in Section 3(a)(38) of the Act. Under 

current legal precedent, a dealer is not and should 

not be considered a market maker merely because 

the dealer takes risk positions or devotes substantial 

capital to provide liquidity. Rather, to be 

considered a market maker, a dealer must meet the 

legal requirements set forth in the Act, which 

provides, in relevant part, that a dealer must hold 

itself out as being willing to buy and sell a security 

for its own account on a regular or continuous 

basis. See Exchange Act Section 38(a)(38), 15 U.S.C. 

78c(a)(38). 

61 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) 

62 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

responded that it believes these issues 

were thoroughly vetted during the 

comment process related to this rule 

filing, noting that in addition to the 

comment periods under this rule filing, 

these issues had been addressed in a 

preceding rule filing that was 

superseded by this proposal.56

IV. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

The Commission has reviewed 

carefully the Proposed Interpretation, 

the comments on the proposed rule 

change, as amended, and NASD’s 

response to the comments, and believes 

that NASD has responded appropriately 

to the concerns raised by the 

commenters. The Commission finds that 

the Proposed Interpretation, as 

amended, is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and rules and 

regulations thereunder applicable to a 

national securities association, and, in 

particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the 

Act, which requires, among other 

things, that the rules of a national 

securities association be designed to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest.57

The Proposed Interpretation is 

designed to provide guidance to dealers 

for calculating fair prices and mark-ups 

in compliance with NASD Rule 2440 in 

a way that is consistent with longstanding Commission and judicial 

precedent regarding fair mark-ups.58

The Proposed Interpretation provides a 

framework that specifically establishes 

contemporaneous cost as the 

presumptive prevailing market price, 

but also identifies certain dynamic 

factors that are relevant to whether 

contemporaneous cost or alternative 

values provide the most appropriate 

measure of prevailing market price. The 

Commission believes that the factors 

that govern when a dealer may depart 

from contemporaneous cost and that set 

forth alternative measures the dealer 

may use are reasonably designed to 

provide greater certainty to dealers and 

investors while providing an 

appropriate level of flexibility for 

dealers to consider alternative market 

factors when pricing debt securities. 

While we are mindful of the 

important issues raised by commenters, 

we believe that NASD has reasonably 

addressed them. For example, the QIB 

exception should provide dealers with 

flexibility for transactions that present 

greater pricing challenges without 

undermining the investor protection 

benefits of the Proposed Interpretation. 

While it declined to expand this 

exception in response to comments at 

this time, NASD committed to monitor 

how the market adjusts to the use of 

differentiated regulation for QIBs in 

relation to mark-ups.59

The Commission also believes NASD 

has adequately addressed and 

responded to other issues raised by 

commenters throughout the comment 

process.60 NASD’s submission of two 

sets of responsive comments and five 

amendments to this rule filing reflects a 

deliberative and collaborative process 

ultimately focused on providing 

comprehensive and flexible mark-up 

guidance that contemplates dealers’

practical experience in the debt markets. 

It is unavoidable that determining the 

baseline for a fair and reasonable markup will be inherently challenging. By 

recognizing the facts-and-circumstances 

nature of the analysis and by setting 

forth a logical series of factors to be used 

when a dealer departs from 

contemporaneous cost, however, NASD 

has proposed an approach for 

identifying the prevailing market price 

of a debt security that is reasonable and 

practical in addressing the interests of 

dealers and investors. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,61 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–NASD–2003–

141), as modified by Amendment Nos. 

1 through 5, be, and it hereby is, 

approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.62

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–7611 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Request and 

Comment Request 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) publishes a list of information 

collection packages that will require 

clearance by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) in compliance with 

P.L. 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. 

The information collection packages 

that may be included in this notice are 

for new information collections, 

approval of existing information 

collections, revisions to OMB-approved 

information collections, and extensions 

(no change) of OMB-approved 

information collections. 

SSA is soliciting comments on the 

accuracy of the agency’s burden 

estimate; the need for the information; 

its practical utility; ways to enhance its 

quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways 

to minimize burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Written 

comments and recommendations 

regarding the information collection(s) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Notices 20155 

should be submitted to the OMB Desk 

Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance 

Officer. The information can be mailed, 

faxed or e-mailed to the individuals at 

the addresses and fax numbers listed 

below: 

(OMB), Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, 

Fax: 202–395–6974, E-mail address: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

(SSA), Social Security Administration, 

DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance 

Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 

Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, 

Fax: 410–965–6400, E-mail address: 

OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov. 

I. The information collections listed 

below are pending at SSA and will be 

submitted to OMB within 60 days from 

the date of this notice. Therefore, your 

comments should be submitted to SSA 

within 60 days from the date of this 

publication. You can obtain copies of 

the collection instruments by calling the 

SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410–

965–0454 or by writing to the address 

listed above. 

1. Request for Program Consultation—

20 CFR 404.1601—1661–0960–New. 

The Disability Determination Services 

(DDS) offices are staffed by State 

employees who perform disability 

determinations for applicants for Social 

Security disability benefits under Title 

II and Title XVI of the Social Security 

Act. 

SSA’s federal regional quality 

assurance office has the authority to 

review DDS determinations, to assess 

errors, and to return cases for corrective 

action by the DDS. 

The information collected on the 

Request for Program Consultation (RPC) 

will be used by the DDS’s that request 

a review of the regional quality 

assurance evaluations. The DDS’s use 

the RPC to present their rationale that 

supports their determinations. The 

information collected includes a short 

rationale and policy citations 

supporting their rebuttal. The RPC team 

will use the information to reassess their 

initial determination. 

The respondents are DDS’s who 

request a review of the regional quality 

assurance determination. 

Type of Request: Request for a new 

information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 4500. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden Per Response: 50 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 3750 

hours. 

2. Request to Decision Review Board 

To Vacate the Administrative Law Judge 

Dismissal of Hearing—20 CFR 

405.427—0960–NEW. The information 

collected on Form SSA–525 will be 

used by Social Security 

Administration’s Decision Review 

Board (Board) when a hearing on a 

claim for Title II or Title XVI disability 

payments is dismissed and the claimant 

requests that the dismissal be vacated. 

The Board will use this information to 

(1) establish the continued involvement 

of the requester in his or her claim; 

(2) consider the requester’s arguments 

for vacating the dismissal; and (3) vacate 

or decline to vacate the administrative 

law judge’s dismissal order. The 

respondents are Social Security 

disability or Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) claimants who are 

requesting that the dismissal be vacated. 

Type of Request: Request for a new 

information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 30,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 5,000 

hours. 

3. Medical History and Disability 

Report, Disabled Child—20 CFR 

416.912—0960–0577. The Social 

Security Act requires claimants to 

furnish medical and other evidence to 

prove they are disabled. The form SSA–

3820 is used to obtain various types of 

information about a child’s condition, 

his/her treating sources and/or other 

medical sources of evidence. The 

information collected on the SSA–3820 

is needed for the determination of 

disability by the State DDSs. The 

respondents are applicants for Title XVI 

(SSI) child disability benefits. 

Type of Request: Revision to an OMBapproved information collection. 

Collection format Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Average 

burden per 

responses 

(hours) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

(hours) 

SSA–3820 (Paper Form) ................................................................................. 500 1 1 500 

Electronic Disability Collection System (EDCS) .............................................. 422,000 1 1 34 239,133 

i3820 (Internet) ................................................................................................ 39,500 1 2 79,000 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 462,000 ........................ ........................ 318,633 

1 Minutes. 

4. Social Security Disability Report—

20 CFR 404.1512 & 416.912—0960–

0579. The Social Security 

Administration requires applicants for 

disability payments to furnish medical, 

work history, and other evidence or 

information indicating they have an 

impairment which is disabling. This 

information is collected by form SSA–

3368, the Adult Disability Report, and is 

used by State DDS’s to make disability 

determinations for SSA. 

The respondents are applicants for 

Title II and Title XVI disability benefits. 

These applicants may complete the form 

using any of the following modalities: 

(1) The traditional paper form; (2) an 

interview with an SSA field office 

representative, using the Electronic 

Disability Collection System (EDCS); (3) 

the Internet (i3368); and (4) a modality, 

the i3368–PRO, an Internet form 

designed to be completed by 

representatives of applicants for 

disability payments. The latter three 

versions of the form collect the same 

information as the paper form, but may 

be formatted differently and include 

certain enhancements (ex: self-help 

screens) to guide the claimant or 

interviewer through the application 

process. 

Type of Request: Revision to an OMBapproved information collection. 

Collection format Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

(hours) 

SSA–3368 (Paper version) .............................................................................. 9,364 1 1 9,364 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
20156 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Notices 

Collection format Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

(hours) 

Field office/Electronic Disability Collection System (EDCS) ........................... 3,138,920 1 1 3,138,920 

i3368 (Internet version; Hour burden varies from 11⁄2–3 hours, depending 

on information required) ............................................................................... 101,135 1 21⁄2 252,837 

i3368–PRO ...................................................................................................... 101,135 1 11⁄2 151,702 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 3,350,554 ........................ ........................ 3,552,823 

5. Certification of Contents of 

Document(s) or Record(s)—20 CFR 

404.715 ff–0960–689. SSA must secure 

evidence necessary for individuals to 

establish rights to benefits. Some of the 

types of evidence needed are evidence 

of age relationship, citizenship, 

marriage, death, and military service. 

Form SSA–704 allows SSA employees, 

state record custodians, and other 

custodians of evidentiary documents to 

record information from documents and 

records to establish these types of 

evidence. SSA employees use this form 

but it is also used by state record 

custodians and other custodians of 

evidentiary documents. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 4,800. 

Average Burden Per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 800. 

6. Waiver of Your Right to Personal 

Appearance before an Administrative 

Law Judge—20 CFR 404.948(b)(l)(i) and 

416.1448(b)(l)(i) –0960–0284. Each 

claimant has a statutory right to appear 

in person (or through a representative) 

and present evidence about his/her 

claim at a hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). If a 

claimant wishes to waive his/her 

statutory right to appear before an ALJ, 

he/she must complete a written request. 

The claimant may use Form HA–4608 

for this request. The information 

collected is used to document an 

individual’s claim to show that an oral 

hearing is not preferred in the appellate 

process. The respondents are applicants 

for Title II benefits and Title XVI 

payments who request a hearing. 

Number of Respondents: 12,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 2 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 400 hours. 

7. Youth Transition Process 

Demonstration Evaluation Data 

Collection–0960–0687. 

Background 

The Youth Transition Demonstration 

(YTD) projects are intended to help 

young people with disabilities make the 

transition from school to work. By 

waiving certain disability program rules 

and offering services to youth who are 

either receiving disability benefits or at 

risk of receiving them, these projects are 

expected to encourage youth to work 

and/or continue their education. YTD 

projects will be fully implemented in 10 

sites across the country. The evaluation 

will produce empirical evidence on the 

impacts of the waivers and project 

services not only on educational 

attainment, employment, earnings, and 

receipt of benefits by youth with 

disabilities but also on the Social 

Security Trust Fund and federal income 

tax revenues. This type of project is 

authorized by sections 1110 and 234 of 

the Social Security Act. 

Project Description 

Given the importance of estimating 

YTD impacts as accurately as possible, 

the evaluation will be conducted using 

rigorous analytic methods based on the 

random assignment of youth to a 

treatment or control group. Several data 

collection efforts are planned. These 

include (1) baseline interviews with 

youth and their parents or guardians 

prior to random assignment; (2) followup interviews at 12 and 36 months after 

random assignment; (3) interviews and/ 

or roundtable discussions with local 

program administrators, program 

supervisors, and service delivery staff; 

and (4) focus groups of youth, their 

parents, and service providers. The 

respondents will be youths with 

disabilities who have enrolled in the 

project, their parents or guardians, 

program staff, and service providers. 

Type of Request: Revision of an 

existing OMB Clearance. 

Data collection year Collection Number of 

respondents 

Responses 

per 

respondent 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Total response 

burden 

(hours) 

2007 .................................................. Baseline ............................................ 962 1 33 529 

12 month follow-up ........................... 437 1 50 364 

Focus group ..................................... 140 1 90 210 

Program staff/service provider ......... 32 1 60 32 

Total 2007 .................................. ........................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,135 

8. Annual Registration Statement 

Identifying Separated Participants With 

Deferred Benefits, Schedule SSA—

0960–0606. Schedule SSA is a form 

filed annually as part of a series of 

pension plan documents required by 

section 6057 of the IRS Code. 

Administrators of pension benefit plans 

are required to report specific 

information on future plan benefits for 

those participants who left plan 

coverage during the year. SSA maintains 

the information until a claim for Social 

Security benefits has been approved. At 

that time, SSA notifies the beneficiary of 

his/her potential eligibility for payments 

from the private pension plan. The 

respondents are administrators of 

pension benefit plans or their service 

providers employed to prepare the 

Schedule SSA on behalf of the pension 

benefit plan. Below are the estimates of 

the cost and hour burdens for 

completing and filing Schedule SSA(s). 

We have used an average to estimate the 

hour burden. However, the burden may 

be greater or smaller depending on 

whether the respondent is a large or 

small pension benefit plan and how 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Notices 20157 

many Schedule SSA’s are filed in a 

given year. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 88,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 2.5 

hours. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 220,000 

hours. 

Estimated Annual Cost Burden for All 

Respondents: $12,194,400. 

II. The information collections listed 

below have been submitted to OMB for 

clearance. Your comments on the 

information collections would be most 

useful if received by OMB and SSA 

within 30 days from the date of this 

publication. You can obtain a copy of 

the OMB clearance packages by calling 

the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 

410–965–0454, or by writing to the 

address listed above. 

1. Application for Benefits under the 

Italy-U.S. International Social Security 

Agreement—20 CFR 404.19250—960–

0445. The United States and Italy 

entered into an agreement on November 

1, 1978. Article 19.2 of that agreement 

provides that an applicant for benefits 

can file his application with either 

country. Article 4.3 of the Protocol to 

the Agreement provides that the country 

that receives the application will 

forward agreed upon forms and 

applications to the other country. Form 

SSA–2528 is the form agreed upon that 

is completed by individuals who file an 

application for U.S. benefits directly 

with one of the Italian Social Security 

Agencies. The information collected on 

Form SSA–2528 is required by SSA in 

order to determine entitlement to 

benefits. The respondents are applicants 

for old-age, survivors or disability 

benefits, who reside in Italy. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection 

Number of Respondents: 200. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 20 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 67 hours. 

2. Physician’s/Medical Officer’s 

Statement of Patient’s Capability to 

Manage Benefits—20 CFR 404.2015 & 

416.615—0960–0024. The information 

collected on the SSA–787 is used to 

determine whether an individual is 

capable of handling his or her own 

benefits. This information is also used 

for leads in selecting a representative 

payee, if needed. The respondents are 

physicians of the beneficiaries or 

medical officers of the institution in 

which the beneficiaries reside. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 120,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 20,000 

hours. 

3. Modified Benefit Formula 

Questionnaire—Foreign Pension—

0960–0561. The information collected 

on the SSA–308 is used to determine 

exactly how much (if any) of a foreign 

pension may be used to reduce the 

amount of Social Security retirement or 

disability benefits under the modified 

benefit formula. The respondents are 

applicants for Social Security retirement 

or disability benefits. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 50,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 8,333 

hours. 

4. Social Security Benefits 

Applications—20 CFR Subpart D, 

404.310–404.311 and 20 CFR Subpart F, 

404.601–401.603—0960–0618. One of 

the requirements for obtaining Social 

Security benefits is the filing of an 

application so that a determination may 

be made on the applicant’s eligibility for 

monthly benefits. In addition to the 

traditional paper application, SSA has 

developed various options, listed below, 

for the public to add convenience and 

operational efficiency to the application 

process. The total estimated number of 

respondents to all application 

collections formats is 3,843,369 with a 

cumulative total of 963,056 burden 

hours. The respondents are applicants 

for retirement insurance benefits (RIB), 

disability insurance benefits (DIB), and/ 

or spouses’ benefits. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Internet Social Security Benefits 

Application (ISBA) 

ISBA, which is available through 

SSA’s Internet site, is one method that 

an individual can choose to file an 

application for benefits. Individuals can 

use ISBA to apply for retirement 

insurance benefits (RIB), disability 

insurance benefits (DIB) and spouse’s 

insurance benefits based on age. SSA 

gathers only information relevant to the 

individual applicant’s circumstances 

and will use the information collected 

by ISBA to entitle individuals to RIB, 

DIB, and/or spouses’ benefits. The 

respondents are applicants for RIB, DIB, 

and/or spouses benefits. 

Number of Respondents: 169,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 20.4 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 57,460 

hours. 

Paper Application Forms 

Application for Retirement Insurance 

Benefits (SSA–1) 

The SSA–1 is used by SSA to 

determine an individual’s entitlement to 

RIB. In order to receive Social Security 

RIB, an individual must file an 

application with SSA. The SSA–1 is one 

application that the Commissioner of 

Social Security prescribes to meet this 

requirement. The information that SSA 

collects will be used to determine 

entitlement to benefits. The respondents 

are individuals who choose to apply for 

Social Security RIB using the paper 

application. 

Approximately 1,460,692 respondents 

complete the SSA–1 annually. Of this 

total 97% (1,416,871) are completed 

through SSA’s Modernized Claims 

System (MCS) and 50% of the MCS 

respondents will use Signature Proxy 

(708,435.5). The breakdown is displayed 

on the following chart. 

Collection method Number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

completion 

time 

(minutes) 

Burden hours 

MCS ............................................................................................................................................. 708,436 10.5 123,976 

MCS/Signature Proxy .................................................................................................................. 708,435 9.5 112,169 

Paper ........................................................................................................................................... 43,821 10.5 7,669 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 1,460,692 ........................ 243,814 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
20158 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Notices 

Application for Wife’s or Husband’s 

Insurance Benefits (SSA–2) 

SSA uses the information collected on 

Form SSA–2 to determine if an 

applicant (including a divorced 

applicant) can be entitled to benefits as 

the spouse of the worker and the 

amount of the spouse’s benefits. The 

respondents are applicants for wife’s or 

husband’s benefits, including those who 

are divorced. 

Approximately 700,000 respondents 

complete the SSA–2 annually. Of this 

total 95% (665,000) are completed 

through MCS and 50% of the MCS 

respondents will use Signature Proxy 

(332,500). The breakdown is displayed 

on the following chart: 

Collection method Number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

completion 

time 

(minutes) 

Burden hours 

MCS ............................................................................................................................................. 332,500 15 83,125 

MCS/Signature Proxy .................................................................................................................. 332,500 14 77,583 

Paper ........................................................................................................................................... 35,000 15 8,750 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 700,000 ........................ 169,458 

Application for Disability Insurance 

Benefits (SSA–16) 

Form SSA–16–F6 obtains the 

information necessary to determine 

whether the provisions of the Act have 

been satisfied with respect to an 

applicant for disability benefits, and 

detects whether the applicant has 

dependents who would qualify for 

benefits on his or her earnings record. 

The information collected on form SSA–

16 helps to determine eligibility for 

Social Security disability benefits. The 

respondents are applicants for Social 

Security disability benefits. 

Approximately 1,513,677 respondents 

complete the SSA–16 annually. Of this 

total 97% (1,468,267) are completed 

through SSA’s Modernized Claims 

System (MCS) and 50% of the MCS 

respondents will use Signature Proxy 

(734,133.5). The breakdown is displayed 

on the following chart: 

Collection method Number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

completion 

time 

(minutes) 

Burden hours 

MCS ............................................................................................................................................. 734,134 20 244,711 

MCS/Signature Proxy .................................................................................................................. 734,133 19 232,476 

Paper ........................................................................................................................................... 45,410 20 15,137 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 1,513,677 ........................ 492,324 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Elizabeth A. Davidson, 

Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7649 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5781] 

Bureau of International Security and 

Nonproliferation; Imposition of 

Nonproliferation Measures Against 

Foreign Persons, Including a Ban on 

U.S. Government Procurement. 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: A determination has been 

made that fourteen foreign persons have 

engaged in activities that warrant the 

imposition of measures pursuant to 

Section 3 of the Iran and Syria 

Nonproliferation Act, which provides 

for penalties on foreign persons 

(including individuals, 

nongovernmental entities and 

organizations, governments and 

government entities) for the transfer to 

or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 

1999 or the transfer to or acquisition 

from Syria since January 1, 2005, of 

equipment and technology controlled 

under multilateral export control lists 

(Missile Technology Control Regime, 

Australia Group, Chemical Weapons 

Convention, Nuclear Suppliers Group, 

Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise 

having the potential to make a material 

contribution to the development of 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or 

cruise or ballistic missile systems. The 

latter category includes (a) items of the 

same kind as those on multilateral lists, 

but falling below the control list 

parameters, when it is determined that 

such items have the potential of making 

a material contribution to WMD or 

cruise or ballistic missile systems, (b) 

other items with the potential of making 

such a material contribution, when 

added through case-by-case decisions, 

and (c) items on U.S. national control 

lists for WMD/missile reasons that are 

not on multilateral lists. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On 

general issues: Pamela K. Durham, 

Office of Missile Threat Reduction, 

Bureau of International Security and 

Nonproliferation, Department of State 

(202–647–4931). On U.S. Government 

procurement ban issues: Gladys Gines, 

Office of the Procurement Executive, 

Department of State (703–516–1691). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Sections 2 and 3 of the Iran and Syria 

Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109–112), 

the U.S. Government determined on 

April 10, 2007 that the measures 

authorized in Section 3 of the Act shall 

apply to the following foreign persons 

identified in the report submitted 

pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act: 

China National Precision Machinery 

Import/Export Corporation (CPMIEC) 

(China) and any successor, sub-unit, or 

subsidiary thereof; 

Shanghai Non-Ferrous Metals Pudong 

Development Trade Co. Ltd. (China) and 

any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary 

thereof; 

Zibo Chemet Equipment Company 

(China) and any successor, sub-unit, or 

subsidiary thereof; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES