Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices 3721

Other Regulatory Requirements

Governing EFPs: Disclosure

(17) What should be the form and content

of disclosure concerning EFPs?

(18) Should the form and content of

disclosure vary according to the commercial

sophistication of the EFP participant similar

to the Commission’s proposed amendment to

Regulation 1.55?

(19) Should the Commission explicitly

require that customers must be informed that

an EFP is executed noncompetitively, that it

involves a cash transaction, and that their

FCM might take the opposite side of the EFP?

(20) Should the Commission explicitly

require Commission registrants to obtain

customer consent before executing an EFP on

the customer’s behalf?

Other Regulatory Requirements

Governing EFPs: Internal Controls

(21) What internal controls are appropriate

for Commission registrants to ensure

compliance with regulatory requirements

concerning the essential elements of bona

fide EFPs, reporting and recordkeeping, and

disclosure?

Other Regulatory Requirements

Governing EFPs: Transparency

(22) Do existing price reporting standards

provide adequate transparency concerning

EFPs to the marketplace and, if not, are there

alternative methods of achieving improved

price transparency?

(23) Should the Commission require

contract markets to publicize information

about bids and offers, as well as

consummated EFP transactions?

Types of Eligible Transactions:

Exchanges of Futures for Swaps

(24) What are the economic reasons firms

might have for engaging in EFS transactions

and what benefits might accrue thereunder,

including the potential benefits to domestic

futures markets, to over-the-counter markets,

and to financial markets generally?

(25) What are the potential costs or risks

of permitting EFS transactions, particularly

with respect to the effect on price discovery,

risk transfer, and the competitive character of

‘‘on-exchange’’ transactions?

(26) Should the Commission approve the

NYMEX rule proposal permitting EFS

transactions?

(27) Should EFS transactions be limited to

particular markets, participants or types of

transactions?

(28) Should special provisions be

established to ameliorate any competitive

costs or otherwise safeguard the competitive

conditions of the on-exchange market?

Types of Eligible Transactions:

Exchanges of Options for Physicals

(29) Are EOPs viable and do these

transactions offer genuine risk management

benefits?

(30) If so, should EOPs be permitted, and

should there be limitations on EOPs that

reflect the particular risk characteristics of

options?

Types of Eligible Transactions:

Alternative Execution Procedures

(31) Should alternative, noncompetitive

execution procedures be permitted on or

subject to the rules of a contract market?

(32) If so, how should these procedures be

structured to address regulatory concerns?

(33) Should these procedures be limited by

order size, participant class, contract, or

some other criteria?

(34) Can adequate safeguards be devised in

connection with these procedures to prevent

manipulation?

(35) Can adequate safeguards be devised in

connection with these procedures to prevent

fraud?

Qualifying Standards

(36) What are the appropriate qualifying

standards for noncompetitive transactions

concerning:

(a) the effect on the usefulness of a

designated futures contract as a hedging

mechanism?

(b) the effect on the price discovery function

of a designated futures contract?

(c) the effect on the level of financial integrity

in a designated contract market?

(d) the effect on the level of customer

protection in a designated contract market?

(37) Should access to noncompetitive

transactions be limited to commercials or

sophisticated investors?

(38) Should noncompetitive transactions

be subject to contract market rules?

(39) Are there other appropriate qualifying

standards?

Continuing Regulatory Requirements

(40) What are the appropriate standards to

ensure that noncompetitive transactions are

bona fide and meet basic qualifying

requirements on an ongoing basis?

(41) What are the appropriate reporting and

recordkeeping requirements applicable to

these transactions?

(42) What are the appropriate disclosure

requirements applicable to these

transactions?

(43) What are the appropriate internal

controls applicable to these transactions?

(44) What are the appropriate safeguards to

maintain an adequate level of transparency?

(45) What are the appropriate safeguards to

prevent manipulation?

(46) What are the appropriate safeguards to

prevent fraud?

Execution Facilities for Noncompetitive

Transactions Executed on or Subject to

the Rules of a Contract Market:

Qualifying Standards

(47) What characteristics distinguish

execution facilities for EFPs from contract

markets?

(48) Is the current regulatory approach

concerning these facilities adequate?

(49) If not, what modifications are

appropriate?

(50) If execution facilities were established

for noncompetitive transactions other than

EFPs, how, if at all, should the regulatory

approach that would apply to those facilities

vary from that currently applicable to

contract markets?

(51) Should execution facilities for EFPs

and other noncompetitive transactions that

are operated by non-contract markets be

subject to oversight by the relevant contract

market?

(52) Should these facilities limit access to

commercials or sophisticated investors?

(53) Should these facilities be subject to

procedures to prevent manipulation?

(54) Should these facilities be subject to

procedures to prevent fraud?

(55) Should these facilities be subject to

procedures to ensure that transactions

executed thereon are bona fide?

(56) Should these facilities be subject to

procedures to provide for market

transparency?

(57) Should these facilities be subject to

procedures related to reporting and

recordkeeping?

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16,

1998.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1672 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title, Associated Form, and OMB

Number: Customer Comments; AF Form

3211; OMB Number 0701–(to be

determined).

Type of Request: New Collection.

Number of Respondents: 200.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 200.

Average Burden per Response: 5

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 17.

Needs and Uses: Each guest of Air

Force lodging and its contract lodging

operations are provided access to AF

Form 3211. AF Form 3211 gives each

guest the opportunity to comment on

facilities and service received.

Completion of the form is optional. The

information collection requirement is

necessary for Wing leadership to access

the effectiveness of their lodging

program. AF Form 3211 is useful as

background documentation and

supporting material for various

management decisions. The information

is reviewed by higher headquarters

during lodging assistance and Innkeeper

Award competitions.
3722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Notices

Affected Public: Individuals or

Households; Business or Other ForProfit.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C.

Springer.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Springer at the Office of

Management and Budget, Desk Officer

for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert

Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: January 21, 1998.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–1738 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000–0090]

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request Entitled Rights in

Data and Copyrights

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of request for an

extension to an existing OMB clearance

(9000–0090).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Secretariat has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) a

request to review and approve an

extension of a currently approved

information collection requirement

concerning Rights in Data and

Copyrights. A request for public

comments was published at 62 FR

62001, November 20, 1997. No

comments were received.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on

or before February 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

O’Neill, Federal Acquisition Policy

Division, GSA (202) 501–3856.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

should be submitted to: FAR Desk

Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB,

Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to

the General Services Administration,

FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW,

Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0090,

Rights in Data and Copyrights, in all

correspondence.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

Rights in Data is a regulation which

concerns the rights of the Government,

and organizations with which the

Government contracts, to information

developed under such contracts. The

delineation of such rights is necessary

in order to protect the contractor’s rights

to not disclose proprietary data and to

insure that data developed with public

funds is available to the public.

The information collection burdens

and recordkeeping requirements

included in this regulation fall into the

following four categories.

(a) A provision which is to be

included in solicitations where the

proposer would identify any proprietary

data he would use during contract

performance in order that the

contracting officer might ascertain if

such proprietary data should be

delivered.

(b) Contract provisions which, in

unusual circumstances, would be

included in a contract and require a

contractor to deliver proprietary data to

the Government for use in evaluation of

work results, or is software to be used

in a Government computer. These

situations would arise only when the

very nature of the contractor’s work is

comprised of limited rights data or

restricted computer software and if the

Government would need to see that data

in order to determine the extent of the

work.

(c) A technical data certification for

major systems, which requires the

contractor to certify that the data

delivered under the contract is

complete, accurate and compliant with

the requirements of the contract. As this

provision is for major systems only, and

few civilian agencies have such major

systems, only about 30 contracts will

involve this certification.

(d) The Additional Data Requirements

clause, which is to be included in all

contracts for experimental,

developmental, research, or

demonstration work (other than basic or

applied research to be performed solely

by a university or college where the

contract amount will be $500,000 or

less). The clause requires that the

contractor keep all data first produced

in the performance of the contract for a

period of three years from the final

acceptance of all items delivered under

the contract. Much of this data will be

in the form of the deliverables provided

to the Government under the contract

(final report, drawings, specifications,

etc.). Some data, however, will be in the

form of computations, preliminary data,

records of experiments, etc., and these

will be the data that will be required to

be kept over and above the deliverables.

The purpose of such recordkeeping

requirements is to insure that the

Government can fully evaluate the

research in order to ascertain future

activities and to insure that the research

was completed and fully reported, as

well as to give the public an opportunity

to assess the research results and secure

any additional information. All data

covered by this clause is unlimited

rights data paid for by the Government.

Paragraph (d) of the Rights in DataGeneral clause outlines a procedure

whereby a contracting officer can

challenge restrictive markings on data

delivered. Under civilian agency

contracts, limited rights data or

restricted computer software is rarely, if

ever, delivered to the Government.

Therefore, there will rarely be any

challenges. Thus, there is no burden on

the public.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

The annual reporting burden is

estimated as follows: Respondents,

1,100; responses per respondent, 1; total

annual responses, 1,100; preparation

hours per response, 2.7; and total

response burden hours, 29,970.

C. Annual Recordkeeping Burden

The annual recordkeeping burden is

estimated as follows: Recordkeepers,

9,000; hours per recordkeeper, 3; and

total recordkeeping burden hours,

27,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals:

Requester may obtain a copy of the

justification from the General Services

Administration, FAR Secretariat (VRS),

Room 4037, 1800 F Street, Washington,

DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0090,

Rights in Data and Copyrights, in all

correspondence.

Dated: January 21, 1998.

Sharon A. Kiser,

FAR Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 98–1781 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P