Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 52793 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, 

CBOE included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), 

and (C) below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

CBSX proposes to modify its 

transaction fees for 24 securities 

currently traded on CBSX (the following 

symbols: BAC, C, DXD, EMC, EWJ, F, 

FAX, FAZ, GE, INTC, MOT, MSFT, MU, 

NOK, Q, QID, S, SIRI, SKF, T, TWM, 

UNG, UWM, XLF). For these securities, 

assuming their prices do not drop below 

$1, the takers of liquidity will receive a 

$0.0014 per share rebate, and makers of 

liquidity will incur a $0.0018 charge. 

The new pricing strategy is designed to 

incent order routing behavior that 

selects CBSX as the first destination. By 

offering customers a significant rebate to 

‘‘remove’’ liquidity, the Exchange will 

offer overall economic benefits far above 

those received at other markets. The 

changes will take effect on August 16, 

2010. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The proposed rule change is 

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,5

in general, and furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(4) 6 of the Act in particular, 

in that it is designed to provide for the 

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 

fees, and other charges among CBOE 

members and other persons using its 

facilities. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

CBOE does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 7 and subparagraph (f)(2) of 

Rule 19b–4 8 thereunder. At any time 

within 60 days of the filing of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

summarily may temporarily suspend 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–CBOE–2010–075 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2010–075. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). 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 Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing 

also will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. All comments received will 

be posted without change; the 

Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– 

2010–075 and should be submitted on 

or before September 17, 2010. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21342 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–62755, File No. SR–MSRB– 

2010–02] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Order Granting Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto, to MSRB 

Rule G–34, CUSIP Numbers and New 

Issue Requirements, To Enhance the 

Interest Rate and Descriptive 

Information Currently Collected and 

Made Transparent by the MSRB on 

Municipal Auction Rate Securities and 

Variable Rate Demand Obligations 

August 20, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

On March 10, 2010, the Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’), 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’),1

and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed 

rule change to enhance the interest rate 

and descriptive information currently 

collected and made transparent by the 

MSRB on municipal Auction Rate 

Securities (‘‘ARS’’) and Variable Rate 

Demand Obligations (‘‘VRDOs’’). The 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

52794 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61793 

(March 26, 2010), 75 FR 16878 (‘‘Original Notice’’) 

(the ‘‘original proposed rule change’’). 4See letters from: Vladimir Drozdoff, Centerport, 

New York, dated April 4, 2010 (‘‘Drozdoff Letter’’); 

Joseph S. Fichera, Saber Partners, LLC, New York, 

New York (‘‘Saber Partners’’), dated April 12, 2010 

(‘‘Saber Letter’’); Heather Traeger, Associate 

Counsel, Investment Company Institute (‘‘ICI’’), 

dated April 23, 2010 (‘‘ICI Letter’’); Leslie M. 

Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General 

Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), dated April 23, 2010 

(‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); Robert J. Stracks, Counsel, BMO 

Capital Markets GKST Inc. (‘‘BMO Capital’’), dated 

April 23, 2010 (‘‘BMO Letter’’) and Nik Mainthia, 

dated July 12, 2010 (‘‘Mainthia Letter’’). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

6 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62550 

(July 22, 2010), 75 FR 44296 (‘‘Notice of 

Amendment No. 1’’). 

8See supra note 4. 

9See supra note 3. 

10See Saber Letter, ICI Letter, SIFMA Letter and 

BMO Letter. 

11See Drozdoff Letter and Mainthia Letter. 

proposed rule change was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

April 2, 2010.3 The Commission 

received six comment letters about the 

proposed rule change.4 On July 9, 2010, 

the MSRB filed with the Commission, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Exchange Act 5 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,6 Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change.7 The Commission 

received no comment letters in response 

to Amendment No. 1. This order 

approves the proposed rule change as 

modified by Amendment No. 1. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change, as Modified by Amendment 

No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change 

The proposed rule change would 

enhance the interest rate and descriptive 

information currently collected and 

made transparent by the MSRB on 

municipal Auction Rate Securities 

(‘‘ARS’’) and Variable Rate Demand 

Obligations (‘‘VRDOs’’). The proposed 

rule change would: (i) Amend MSRB 

Rules G–8, books and records, and 

G–34(c), variable rate security market 

information, to require brokers, dealers 

and municipal securities dealers 

(collectively ‘‘dealers’’) to (a) submit to 

the MSRB documents that define 

auction procedures and interest rate 

setting mechanisms for ARS and 

liquidity facilities for VRDOs; (b) report 

to the MSRB ARS bidding information; 

(c) report to the MSRB additional VRDO 

information; and (d) communicate to an 

ARS Program Dealer the fact that an 

order submitted for inclusion in an 

auction is on behalf of an ARS issuer or 

conduit borrower (collectively ‘‘rule 

change proposal’’); (ii) amend the MSRB 

Short-term Obligation Rate 

Transparency (‘‘SHORT’’) System 

Facility to collect and disseminate the 

documents identified in the rule change 

proposal (‘‘SHORT System Facility 

amendment proposal’’); and (iii) amend 

the MSRB EMMA Short-term Obligation 

Rate Transparency Service to make the 

documents collected in the SHORT 

System Facility amendment proposal 

available on the MSRB’s Electronic 

Municipal Market Access (EMMA) Web 

site (the ‘‘EMMA Short-term Obligation 

Rate Transparency Service 

amendment’’). A full description of the 

proposal is contained in the Notice of 

Amendment No. 1. 

The MSRB has requested that the 

proposed rule change, which may be 

implemented in phases, be made 

effective on such date or dates as would 

be announced by the MSRB in notices 

published on the MSRB Web site, which 

dates would be no later than nine 

months after Commission approval of 

the proposed rule change and would be 

announced no later than sixty (60) days 

prior to the effective dates. 

III. Summary of Comments Received 

and the MSRB’s Response 

General Comments 

The Commission received six 

comment letters 8 relating to the 

Original Notice.9 The MSRB addressed 

the issues raised by the comment letters 

on the original proposed rule change in 

the Notice of Amendment No. 1. The 

Commission received no comment 

letters in response to the Notice of 

Amendment No. 1. 

While the commenters indicated 

general support for the MSRB’s effort to 

increase transparency of ARS and 

VRDO, four commenters on the original 

proposed rule change expressed 

concerns about various aspects of the 

proposal or suggested alternatives.10

Two other commenters who have 

invested in ARS described problems 

they had experienced in that market.11

Mr. Drozdoff fully supported the 

proposal, noting that he held positions 

in two ARS and has been unable to 

obtain certain information about them. 

Mr. Drozdoff further stated that the lack 

of transparency creates the opportunity 

for manipulation and unfair dealing. 

Additional VRDO Information 

The original proposed rule change 

would increase the information that a 

VRDO Remarketing Agent would be 

required to report to the SHORT System. 

SIFMA expressed concern with the 

requirement in the proposed rule 

change for VRDO Remarketing Agents to 

report the identity of each tender agent 

and liquidity provider and maintain the 

accuracy of that information. SIFMA 

noted that the Remarketing Agent is not 

in privity of contract with the tender 

agent or the liquidity facility provider, 

that the identities of these parties may 

change and that the Remarketing Agent 

may not receive timely notification of 

such changes. SIFMA suggested that 

Remarketing Agents only be required to 

report such information on a ‘‘best 

efforts’’ basis. 

The MSRB stated that it does not 

believe that it is appropriate for VRDO 

Remarketing Agents to be required only 

to exercise best efforts to report this 

information. Under the terms of the 

original proposed rule change, the 

VRDO Remarketing Agent would be 

required to modify any past submissions 

to the SHORT System in the event 

updated information about the tender 

agents and liquidity providers becomes 

known. In response to this comment, 

the MSRB provided in Amendment No. 

1 that the requirement to report these 

identities is based upon information 

known to the VRDO Remarketing Agent 

as of the time of the interest rate reset. 

The Commission believes that 

Amendment No. 1 adequately addresses 

this concern. 

SIFMA also expressed concern that 

the VRDO Remarketing Agent does not 

necessarily know the par amount of 

VRDOs, if any, held by a liquidity 

provider (‘‘Bank Bonds’’) at any point in 

time so that the VRDO Remarketing 

Agent would be able to obtain and 

report accurate information. SIFMA 

noted that VRDO Remarketing Agents 

may not know the precise amount of 

securities held as Bank Bonds as a result 

of revised amortization schedules for 

securities held as Bank Bonds as well as 

instances when holders tender 

securities directly to a tender agent. The 

MSRB noted in Amendment No. 1 that 

the proposal already adequately 

addresses SIFMA’s concern as it only 

requires VRDO Remarketing Agents to 

report the par amount of Bank Bonds 

based upon information available to the 

VRDO Remarketing Agent as of the time 

of the interest rate reset. The 

Commission agrees that the requirement 

is reasonable because the reporting 

requirement is limited to information 

available to the VRDO Remarketing 

Agent. 

ARS Bidding Information 

Saber Partners and SIFMA both stated 

that ARS bidding information required 

to be reported by ARS Program Dealers 

should be reported as individual data 

elements instead of as a wordsearchable document. Saber Partners 

stated that greater transparency about 

the auctions would address some of the 

investor confidence issues created by 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 52795 

the 2008 crisis and would encourage 

secondary market trading. Saber 

Partners also noted a large volume of 

ARS still outstanding that could benefit 

from additional market transparency. 

The MSRB agreed that having ARS 

bidding information collected as data 

elements would be a preferred method 

of data collection. The MSRB noted that 

collection of data elements would 

facilitate data analysis and the 

computation of statistics, such as a bidto-cover ratio, that would provide 

meaningful information about the 

demand for a specific ARS. 

Accordingly, in response to these 

comments, Amendment No. 1 requires 

ARS bidding information to be reported 

to the SHORT System as individual data 

elements. The Commission believes 

Amendment No. 1 adequately addresses 

their concerns. 

SIFMA also expressed concerns with 

the requirement to report orders 

submitted by an issuer or conduit 

borrower. SIFMA noted that some 

issuers or conduit borrowers utilize a 

third party, such as an investment 

adviser or registered representative, for 

submitting orders to an ARS Program 

Dealer. In these cases, the ARS Program 

Dealer may not know that such orders 

are on behalf of issuers or conduit 

borrowers. To ensure ARS Program 

Dealers are provided with this 

information, Amendment No. 1 includes 

a new requirement for any dealer that 

receives an order for inclusion in an 

auction for ARS from an issuer or 

conduit borrower of such ARS to 

disclose this fact when submitting the 

order to an ARS Program Dealer. In 

Amendment No. 1, the MSRB also 

amended the original proposed rule 

change by removing the requirement to 

identify whether orders placed by an 

issuer or conduit borrower were 

executed. The MSRB noted that ARS 

Program Dealers would not be able to 

reliably ascertain whether orders on 

behalf of an issuer or conduit borrower 

submitted by a third-party dealer were 

executed, particularly if the third-party 

dealer submits more orders than just 

those on behalf of the issuer or conduit 

borrower and only some of those orders 

are filled. 

SIFMA also suggested that the 

requirement to disclose the interest 

rate(s) and aggregate par amount(s) of 

orders to sell at a specific rate should be 

amended to read ‘‘hold at a rate’’ to 

conform to current practice and 

documentation. SIFMA noted that when 

the rate drops below that customer’s 

‘‘hold at’’ rate, the order is automatically 

converted into a sell order. The MSRB 

acknowledged in Amendment No. 1 that 

this requirement could be consolidated 

to simplify the rule language. The MSRB 

stated that Amendment No. 1 removes 

the requirement to report ‘‘sell at rate’’ 

orders as the remaining ‘‘hold at rate’’ 

and ‘‘sell at any interest rate’’ categories 

of orders should provide for the 

reporting of all sell orders. 

ARS and VRDO Documents 

The original proposed rule change 

would require ARS Program Dealers and 

VRDO Remarketing Agents to submit to 

the MSRB current and any new or 

amended versions of ARS documents 

defining auction procedures and interest 

rate setting mechanisms and VRDO 

documents consisting of liquidity 

facilities, including Letter of Credit 

Agreements and Stand-by Bond 

Purchase Agreements. 

For existing documents, the original 

proposed rule change would require 

VRDO Remarketing Agents to make and 

document best efforts to obtain existing 

VRDO documents and specified a 

timeframe of ninety business days from 

the date of effectiveness of a rule change 

for dealers to submit such documents to 

the MSRB. For ARS documents, ARS 

Program Dealers would be required to 

submit existing documents to the MSRB 

no later than ninety business days from 

the date of effectiveness of a rule 

change. On an ongoing basis, the 

original proposed rule change included 

a requirement to submit new or 

amended versions of ARS and VRDO 

documents no later than one business 

day after receipt by the dealer. 

ICI stated that timing is vital to the 

value of collecting and disseminating 

this information to investors. 

Accordingly, ICI supported the MSRB’s 

original proposed submission deadline 

of 30 days from the date of the proposed 

rule change instead of the proposal’s 90- 

day submission deadline. The MSRB 

agreed that it is important to have a 

centralized source of ARS and VRDO 

documents as soon as practical. 

Nonetheless, the MSRB believes that 

ninety days is an appropriate timeframe 

for having such documents submitted to 

the MSRB given the large number of 

documents that would need to be 

submitted to the MSRB and the fact that, 

for outstanding issues, dealers may need 

time to request documents from third 

parties. 

ICI also stated that they strongly 

support the one-business-day 

submission requirement for new or 

amended versions of the ARS and 

VRDO documents. By contrast, SIFMA 

suggested that the deadline for 

submitting such new or amended 

documents be five business days after 

receipt. SIFMA stated that a onebusiness-day time frame is unduly 

burdensome for a broker dealer to 

submit documents to which it is not a 

party, noted the lack of a uniform 

manner in which dealers receive such 

documents from issuers and liquidity 

facility providers, indicated that it could 

take a couple of days internally at a 

broker dealer for these documents to get 

routed to the proper place and stated 

that there are approximately 16,500 

outstanding VRDO transactions that are 

serviced by approximately 80 different 

Remarketing Agents. The MSRB 

concluded that a five-business-day 

deadline would be consistent with the 

timeframe for submitting advance 

refunding documents to the MSRB and 

would be an appropriate timeframe, at 

least initially, for such new or amended 

versions of ARS and VRDO documents 

to be submitted to the MSRB. 

Accordingly, in response to this 

comment, Amendment No. 1 provides a 

five-business-day deadline for 

submitting new or amended versions of 

ARS and VRDO documents to the 

MSRB. The Commission finds that the 

90-business-day and the five-businessday submission deadlines are 

reasonable, at least initially. 

SIFMA also requested clarification of 

the recordkeeping requirement for 

VRDO Remarketing Agents to document 

best efforts to obtain existing VRDO 

documents and asked whether such 

documents would be required to contain 

signatures. The MSRB, in response to 

this comment, amended the original 

proposed rule change in Amendment 

No. 1 to clarify that such records are 

only required to be kept for those 

documents that are unable to be 

obtained. The MSRB also noted that all 

documents would be required to be 

final, operative versions of such 

documents. The MSRB indicated that 

while this requirement does not 

necessarily require that the document be 

signed, the MSRB noted that signatures 

would provide a clear indication that 

the document reflects a final version. 

The Commission believes that 

Amendment No. 1 adequately clarifies 

this issue. 

Other Comments 

ICI recommended that the MSRB 

consider expanding the proposed 

disclosures to ensure a more complete 

picture of the risks associated with ARS, 

VRDOs and other variable rate 

securities, such as ‘‘credit enhancement’’ 

data and documentation. In addition, 

ICI recommended that the MSRB create 

a ‘‘miscellaneous’’ or ‘‘catch-all’’ category 

of variable rate securities to provide 

investors with material information 

about new products. The MSRB noted a 

separate MSRB initiative to display on 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

52796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Notices 

12See MSRB Notice 2010–13 (May 20, 2010). 

13 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

15 Id. 

16 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

17 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

EMMA information offered by credit 

ratings agencies would provide 

additional access to credit enhancement 

features associated with municipal 

securities on a market-wide basis.12 The 

MSRB agrees that new products may 

benefit from the transparency offered for 

ARS and VRDO by the SHORT System, 

and plans to review in the future 

whether changes to the SHORT System 

and associated rules could 

accommodate future products without 

subsequent system and rule 

modifications. 

With regard to all other issues raised 

by the commenters, the Commission 

believes that the MSRB has adequately 

addressed the commenters’ concerns. 

IV. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

The Commission has carefully 

considered the proposed rule change, 

the comment letters received, and the 

MSRB’s responses to the comment 

letters and finds that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Exchange Act and 

the rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to the MSRB13 and, in 

particular, the requirements of Section 

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act 14 and 

the rules and regulations thereunder. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange 

Act requires, among other things, that 

the MSRB’s rules be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

municipal securities, to remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market in 

municipal securities, and, in general, to 

protect investors and the public 

interest.15 In particular, the Commission 

believes that the proposed rule change 

would serve as an additional 

mechanism by which the MSRB works 

toward removing impediments to and 

helping to perfect the mechanisms of a 

free and open market in municipal 

securities by providing a centralized 

venue for free public access to 

information about and documents 

relating to ARS and VRDO. The 

proposed rule change would provide 

greater access to information about and 

documents relating to ARS and VRDO to 

all participants in the municipal 

securities market on an equal basis 

thereby removing potential barriers to 

obtaining such information. These 

factors serve to promote the statutory 

mandate of the MSRB to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as amended, is consistent 

with the Exchange Act and the rules and 

regulations thereunder applicable to the 

MSRB16 and, in particular, the 

requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of 

the Exchange Act 17 and the rules and 

regulations thereunder. The proposal 

will become effective as requested by 

the MSRB. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,18

that the proposed rule change (SR– 

MSRB–2010–02), as amended, be, and it 

hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21308 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 7119] 

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Voluntary Disclosures 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

seeking Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for the 

information collection described below. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 

days for public comment in the Federal 

Register preceding submission to OMB. 

We are conducting this process in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

• Title of Information Collection: 

Voluntary Disclosures. 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–0179. 

• Type of Request: Extension of 

Currently Approved Collection. 

• Originating Office: Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of 

Defense Trade Controls, PM/DDTC. 

• Form Number: None. 

• Respondents: Business and 

Nonprofit Organizations. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 

750. 

• Estimated Number of Responses: 

1,000. 

• Average Hours per Response: 10 

hours. 

• Total Estimated Burden: 10,000 

hours. 

• Frequency: On Occasion. 

• Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. 

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments from the public up to 60 days 

from August 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and questions 

should be directed to Nicholas Memos, 

Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, 

Department of State, who may be 

reached via the following methods: 

• E-mail: memosni@state.gov. 

• Mail: Nicholas Memos, SA–1, 12th 

Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade 

Controls, Bureau of Political-Military 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 

Washington, DC 20522–0112. 

• Fax: 202–261–8199. 

You must include the information 

collection title in the subject lines of 

your message/letter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information regarding the collection 

listed in this notice, including requests 

for copies of the information collection 

and supporting documents, to Nicholas 

Memos, PM/DDTC, SA–1, 12th Floor, 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. 

Department of State, Washington, DC, 

20522–0112, who may be reached via 

phone at (202) 663–2804, or via e-mail 

at memosni@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

soliciting public comments to permit 

the Department to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of our 

functions. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of technology. 

Abstract of proposed collection: The 

export, temporary import, temporary 

export and brokering of defense articles, 

defense services and related technical 

data are licensed by the Directorate of 

Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES