71092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 

NYSE listing standards applicable to 

their parent companies, if any such 

relationship exists. Both the CME and 

the CBOT have determined that their 

member-directors are ‘‘independent’’ for 

purposes of the listing standards. 

Interested parties should comment on 

whether that determination is relevant 

to futures self-regulation. 

II. Questions 

The Commission has formulated the 

following questions based on its 

research, responses to previous Federal 

Register requests for comments, the 

views expressed by interview 

participants, and industry 

developments. Responses from 

interested parties will advance the 

Commission’s understanding of issues 

relevant to conflicts of interest in selfregulation, SRO governance, and other 

relevant matters. Interested parties 

should also raise any additional issues 

that they believe will help the 

Commission’s understanding of the 

issues presented. If interested parties 

believe that they have previously 

addressed any questions or issues 

related to this Request, and have no new 

information to add, they should feel free 

to refer the Commission to those 

responses. 

Possible conflicts of interest, such as 

those that may exist between an SRO’s 

regulatory responsibilities, its 

commercial interests, its members, and 

other constituents, are central to many 

of the questions articulated below. 

Where appropriate, parties should 

identify the specific conflict addressed 

in their response, and how their 

proposal resolves that conflict. With the 

SRO Study drawing to a conclusion, the 

Commission will carefully consider the 

need for additional guidance to insulate 

self-regulation from conflicts of interest 

and improper influence. Any such 

guidance will reflect the Commission’s 

continuing commitment to industry selfregulation, flexible core principles, and 

responsible Commission oversight. 

1. Is the present system of selfregulation an effective regulatory model 

for the futures industry? 

2. As the futures industry adapts to 

increased competition, new ownership 

structures, and for-profit business 

models, what conflicts of interest could 

arise between: 

(i) An SRO’s self-regulatory 

responsibilities and the interests of its 

members, shareholders, and other 

stakeholders; and 

(ii) An SRO’s self-regulatory 

responsibilities and its commercial 

interests? 

3. Given the ongoing industry changes 

cited above, please describe how selfregulation can continue to operate 

effectively. What measures have SROs 

taken thus far, and what additional 

measures are needed, to ensure fair, 

vigorous, and effective self-regulation by 

competitive, publicly-traded, for-profit 

SROs? 

4. What is the appropriate 

composition of SROs’ boards of 

directors to ensure the fairness and 

effectiveness of their self-regulatory 

programs? 

5. Should SROs’ boards include 

independent directors, and, if so, what 

level of representation should they 

have? What factors are relevant to 

determining a director’s independence? 

6. Should self-regulation be overseen 

by an independent entity within an 

SRO? 

(i) If so, what functions and authority 

should be vested in such an entity? 

(ii) At least two futures exchanges 

have implemented board-level 

regulatory oversight committees 

(‘‘ROCs’’) to oversee their regulatory 

functions in an advisory capacity. 

Commenters are invited to address any 

strengths or weaknesses in this 

approach. 

7. The parent companies of some 

SROs are subject to the listing standards 

of the securities exchanges on which 

they are traded. Are such listing 

standards relevant to self-regulation and 

to conflicts of interest within DCMs? 

8. What is the appropriate 

composition of SROs’ disciplinary 

committees to ensure both expertise and 

impartiality in decision-making? 

(i) Should a majority of committee 

members be independent? Should the 

composition of SROs’ disciplinary 

committees reflect the diversity of the 

constituency? Should similar safeguards 

apply to other key committees and if so, 

which committees? 

(ii) Should SRO disciplinary 

committees report to the board of 

directors, an independent internal body, 

or an outside body? 

9. What information should SROs 

make available to the public to increase 

transparency (e.g., governance, 

compensation structure, regulatory 

programs and other related matters)? 

Are the disclosure requirements 

applicable to publicly traded companies 

adequate for SROs? 

10. What conflicts of interest 

standards, if any, should apply 

specifically to DCOs, both stand-alone 

DCOs and those integrated within 

DCMs? 

11. What conflict of interest 

standards, if any, should be applicable 

to third-party regulatory service 

providers, including registered futures 

associations, to ensure fair, vigorous, 

and effective self-regulation on their 

part? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

18, 2005, by the Commission. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E5–6510 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, will submit the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)). 

This program helps to ensure that 

requested data can be provided in the 

desired format, reporting burden (time 

and financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirement on respondents can be 

properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning its 

proposed data collection instrument 

entitled: Field Network Pilot Study 

VISTA Cost Sharing Report Form and 

Survey. The information will be used by 

the Corporation’s VISTA program to 

improve its understanding of the factors 

that determine cost sharing among 

VISTA sponsor organizations. The goal 

is to develop more effective strategies 

for encouraging cost sharing 

arrangements among VISTA sponsor 

organizations. 

Copies of the information collection 

request can be obtained by contacting 

the office listed below in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TTY–TDD) may call (202) 565–

2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Eastern time, Monday through Friday. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section by January 24, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 71093 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Attn: 

John Foster-Bey, Department of 

Research and Policy Development, Rm 

10911, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom, Room 8100, 

at the mail address given in paragraph 

(1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(3) By fax to: 202–606–3464, Attn: 

John Foster-Bey, Senior Advisor to 

Director for Research and Policy 

Development. 

(4) Electronically through the 

Corporation’s e-mail address system: 

jfosterbey@cns.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Corporation is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Propose ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

to those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g. permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Background 

The Corporation has contracted with 

the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of 

Government to carry out a Field 

Network Pilot Study to analyze the 

potential for increasing the number of 

VISTA cost-share members. The Pilot 

Study will consider the implications of 

such expansion for the organizations 

where VISTA members serve 

(hereinafter ‘‘sponsors’’), given the 

Corporation’s commitment to serve 

communities in need. 

The Field Network Pilot Study VISTA 

Cost-Sharing Report Form and Survey 

will be used to assess the reasons why 

some sponsors cost-share and others do 

not; the effects of cost-sharing on 

sponsors; the potential for sponsors who 

are not currently cost-sharing to do so 

successfully in the future; current and 

potential sources of cost-share funds; 

and what actions the Corporation 

should take to help sponsors cost-share. 

Independent, local field researchers will 

be employed in collecting the 

information. During the data-gathering 

phase the researchers will refer to 

background information about the 

Corporation, the VISTA program, and 

the Field Network method. 

Type of Review: New collection. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: Field Network Pilot Study 

VISTA Cost Sharing Report Form and 

Survey. 

OMB Number: None. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Total Respondents: 1450. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Average Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1450 

hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): None. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Robert Grimm, 

Director, Department of Research and Policy 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–23245 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Current Information Collection with 

Revisions; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning changes 

to an existing information collection 

activity, the RSVP Volunteer Survey 

(OMB Number: 3045–0098), which is a 

component of the Performance Surveys 

for its three Senior Corps programs: the 

Foster Grandparent Program, the Senior 

Companion Program, and RSVP (Retired 

and Senior Volunteer Program). 

Copies of the information collection 

request can be obtained by contacting 

the office listed below in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. This form is 

available in alternate formats. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY/TDD) may call (202) 606–5256 

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section by January 24, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Attn. 

Nathan Dietz, Department of Research 

and Policy Development, Rm. 10907, 

1201 New York Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom, Room 8100, 

at the mail address given in paragraph 

(1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(3) By fax to: 202–606–3464, Attn: 

Nathan Dietz, Attn. Nathan Dietz, 

Department of Research and Policy 

Development. 

(4) Electronically through the 

Corporation’s e-mail address system: 

ndietz@cns.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathan Dietz, (202) 606–6633, or by email at ndietz@cns.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Corporation is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used;