Notices. Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning China's compliance with its WTO commitments
15,480 words·~70 min read·
/register/2005/08/03/05-15365A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 52145/July 28, 2005] Securities Exchange Act Of 1934; Order Regarding Alternative Net Capital Computation for Morgan Stanley & Co., Which Has Elected To Be Supervised on a Consolidated Basis Morgan Stanley & Co. (“MS”), a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), and its ultimate holding company, Morgan Stanley (“MSGroup”), have indicated their desire to be supervised by the Commission as a consolidated supervised entity (“CSE”).
MS, therefore, has submitted an application to the Commission for authorization to use the alternative method of computing net capital contained in Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1e) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Based on a review of the application that MS submitted, the Commission has determined that the application meets the requirements of Appendix E. The Commission also has determined that MSGroup is in compliance with the terms of its undertakings, as provided to the Commission under Appendix E.
The Commission, therefore, finds that approval of the application is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Accordingly, *It is ordered* , under paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) to the Exchange Act, that MS may calculate net capital using the market risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for market risk on some or all of its positions, instead of the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) and (c)(2)(vii) of Rule 15c3-1, and using the credit risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction for credit risk on certain credit exposures arising from transactions in derivatives instruments, instead of the provision of paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Rule 15c3-1.
By the Commission. Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4118 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of United Financial Mortgage Corp., To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC File No. 1-14127 July 27, 2005. On July 6, 2005, United Financial Mortgage Corp., an Illinois corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, no par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
On May 2, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that the Board believes trading the Security on Nasdaq will provide a variety of advantages over Amex, including, but not limited to:
(i)Improved liquidity in the Security;
(ii)an increase in the Issuer's visibility and faster trade execution time; and
(iii)better execution quality for investors in the Security. The Issuer stated that the Board believes it is in the best interest of the Issuer and its stockholders to change the listing of the Security to Nasdaq. The Issuer stated that it has met the requirements of Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in Illinois, in which it is incorporated. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *1* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *1* (g). Any interested person may, on or before August 22, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include the File Number 1-14127; or Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14127. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4116 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52146; File No. SR-OPRA-2005-02] Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information To Revise the Manner in which OPRA's Professional Subscribers Fee at the Enterprise Rate Is Determined July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 11, 2005, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA Plan”). 3 The proposed OPRA Plan amendment would revise the manner in which OPRA's Professional Subscribers Fee at the Enterprise Rate would be determined by amending the Enterprise Rate Amendment to the OPRA Professional Subscriber Agreement and the OPRA Professional Subscriber Fee Schedule. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed OPRA Plan amendment. 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 240.11Aa3-2. 3 The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder. *http://www.opradata.com.* The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, Inc., the Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment OPRA states that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to slightly revise the manner in which OPRA's Professional Subscriber Fee at the Enterprise Rate is determined. The Enterprise Rate is an alternative to OPRA's device-based professional subscriber fee, and it is based on the total number of a professional subscriber's registered representatives in the United States, its territories, and possessions as determined on the last day of each calendar year or as determined at other times in accordance with the terms of the Enterprise Amendment to the Professional Subscriber Agreement. The proposed amendment provides that, in reporting the number of its registered representatives, a professional subscriber need not include persons who may previously have been registered representatives, but who are, at the time of the report, legally prohibited from acting as registered representatives (because, for example, their registration has been suspended or withdrawn) and who do not so act. To the extent such persons could have been taken into account in the calculation of the Professional Subscriber Fee at the Enterprise Rate, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to reduce the amount of the Fee. In addition, the proposed amendment to the Professional Subscriber Fee Schedule reflects the elimination of outdated language referring to fees that are no longer in effect. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the principal office of OPRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Implementation of the OPRA Plan Amendment Pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of Rule 11Aa3-2 under the Act, 4 OPRA designates this amendment as establishing or changing a fee or other charge collected on behalf of all of the OPRA participants in connection with access to, or use of, OPRA facilities, thereby qualifying for effectiveness upon filing. The Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment within sixty days of its filing and require refiling and approval of the amendment by Commission order pursuant to Rule 11Aa3-2(c)(2) under the Act, 5 if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets; to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 4 17 CFR 240.11Aa3-2(c)(3)(i). 5 17 CFR 240.11Aa3-2(c)(2). III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA Plan amendment 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-OPRA-2005-02 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OPRA-2005-02. 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 plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan amendment 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OPRA. 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-OPRA-2005-02 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4125 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52150; File No. SR-Amex-2005-079] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Linkage Fee Pilot Program July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis for a pilot period through July 31, 2006. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend for one
(1)year until July 31, 2006, the current pilot program regarding transaction fees for trades submitted through the intermarket option linkage (“Linkage”) and executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to extend for one
(1)year until July 31, 2006, the current pilot program establishing Exchange fees for Principal Orders (“P Orders”) and Principal Acting as Agent Orders (“P/A Orders”) submitted through Linkage and executed on the Exchange. The fees in connection with the pilot program are scheduled to expire on July 31 2005. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50116 (July 29, 2004), 69 FR 47473 (August 5, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-54). The current fees applicable to P Orders and P/A Orders executed on the Exchange are as follows:
(i)$0.10 per contract side options transaction fee for equity options (including exchange-traded fund shares
(ETFs)and OEF options);
(ii)$0.21 per contract side options transaction fee for index options;
(iii)$.05 per contract side options comparison fee;
(iv)$0.05 per contract side options floor brokerage fee;
(v)$0.20 per contract side options licensing fee for SPDR O-Strip options;
(vi)$0.15 per contract side options licensing fee for the ONEQ, MNX and NDX options;
(vii)$0.10 per contract side options licensing fee for SPY, QQQQ, LQD, SHY, IEF, TLT, AGG and TIP options;
(viii)$0.09 per contract side options licensing fee for ICF; and
(ix)$0.05 per contract side options licensing fee for OEF. These are the same fees charged to specialists and registered option traders (“ROTs”) for transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange does not charge for the execution of Satisfaction Orders sent through Linkage. As was the case in the original pilot program and subsequent extensions, the Exchange believes that the existing fees currently charged to Exchange specialists and ROTs should also apply to executions resulting from Linkage orders. Based on the experience to date, the Exchange believes that an extension of the pilot program for one
(1)year until July 31, 2006 is appropriate. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 4 regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among exchange members and other persons using exchange facilities. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 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. 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-079 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-079. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-Amex-2005-079 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, 5 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 which requires that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The Commission believes that the extension of the Linkage fee pilot until July 31, 2006 will give the Exchange and the Commission further opportunity to evaluate whether such fees are appropriate. 5 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15.U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change will preserve the Exchange's existing pilot program for Linkage fees without interruption as the Exchange and the Commission further consider the appropriateness of Linkage fees. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-079) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on July 31, 2006. 9 *Id.* 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4119 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52149; File No. SR-BSE-2005-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program That Allows for No Minimum Size Order Requirement for the Price Improvement Period Process July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 22, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The BSE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 The BSE has asked the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. *See* Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). *See also* discussion *infra* Section III. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter V, Section 18 of the rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”), an options trading facility of the BSE, to extend its existing Price Improvement Period (“PIP”) pilot program that allows for no minimum size order requirement (“PIP Pilot Program”) from August 7, 2005 until July 18, 2006. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. Chapter V, Section 18 Supplementary Material to Section 18 .01 [Initially, and for at least] *During the extended* Pilot Period *from August 7, 2005 to July 18, 2006* [of eighteen months from the commencement of trading on BOX], there will be no minimum size requirement for Customer Orders to be eligible for the PIP process. During this *extended* Pilot Period, BOXR will *continue* to submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size PIP orders, that there is significant price improvement for all orders executed through the PIP, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on BOX outside of the PIP mechanism. Any data which is submitted to the Commission by BOXR will be provided on a confidential basis. .02 No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the PIP Pilot Program under the rules of the BOX. 6 The PIP Pilot Program allows BOX to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP. The proposed rule change retains the text of the Supplementary Material to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules, as currently approved on an eighteen-month pilot basis, and seeks to extend the operation of the PIP Pilot Program until July 18, 2006. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2768 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-04) (“PIP Pilot Program Approval Order”). The PIP Pilot Program provides small customer orders with benefits not available under the rules of most other exchanges. One of the important factors of the PIP Pilot Program is that it guarantees members the right to trade with their customer orders that are less than 50 contracts. In particular, any order entered into the PIP is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least a penny better than the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”). In further support of this proposed rule change and as required by the PIP Pilot Program Approval Order, the Exchange has been submitting to the Commission a monthly PIP Pilot Program Report, offering detailed data from and analysis of the PIP Pilot Program. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the data demonstrates that there is sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the PIP Pilot Program for another year. The proposed rule change is designed to provide investors with real and significant price improvement regardless of the size of the order, without adversely affecting the regular auction. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to provide price improvement to any order, which is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors from a best execution standpoint. Additionally, the Exchange believes price improvement to any size order creates competition for the best execution of all orders, without unduly burdening competition. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The BSE has asked the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay to allow the PIP Pilot Program to continue to operate without interruption. The Commission waives the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. In addition, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the PIP Pilot Program to continue without interruption through July 18, 2006. 9 For this reason, the Commission designates that the proposal become operative immediately. 9 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 Comment 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-BSE-2005-22 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2005-22. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the 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-BSE-2005-22 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4121 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52147; File No. SR-BSE-2005-28] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Linkage Fee Pilot Program July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 27, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis for a pilot period through July 31, 2006. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule (“Fee Schedule”) of the Boston Options Exchange, the options trading facility of the BSE (“BOX”), to extend until July 31, 2006, the current pilot program applicable to the option intermarket linkage (“Linkage”) fees and to make some technical changes to the Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed fee schedule is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ), at the offices of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange's fees for Principal (“P”) and Principal Acting as Agent (“P/A”) orders 3 executed on BOX currently operate under a pilot program scheduled to expire on July 31, 2005. 4 The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program for such Linkage fees through July 31, 2006. Currently, because all Linkage Orders received by BOX are for the account of a market maker on another exchange, the Linkage fees that are applicable to P and P/A Orders are the same as fees applicable to market makers on other exchanges that submit orders to BOX outside of the Linkage. The side of a BOX trade opposite an inbound P or P/A Order would be billed normally as any other BOX trade. Also, consistent with the Linkage Plan, no fees will be charged to a party sending a Satisfaction request (“S” order) to BOX. Rather, a fee will be charged to the BOX Options Participant that was responsible for the trade-through that caused the S order to be sent. 3 Under Chapter XII of the BOX Rules, a “Linkage Order” means an Immediate or Cancel order routed through the Linkage. There are three types of Linkage Orders:
(i)“P/A Order,” which is an order for the principal account of a Market Maker (or equivalent entity on another Participant Exchange that is authorized to represent Public Customer orders), reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Public Customer order for which the specialist is acting as agent;
(ii)“P Order,” which is an order for the principal account of a market maker (or equivalent entity on another Participant Exchange) and is not a P/A Order; and
(iii)“Satisfaction Order,” which is an order sent through the Linkage to notify a Participant Exchange of a Trade-Through and to seek satisfaction of the liability arising from that Trade-Through. 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50124 (July 30, 2004), 69 FR 47963 (August 6, 2004) (SR-BSE 2004-32). The Exchange believes that extending the Linkage fee pilot program until July 31, 2006 will give the Exchange and the Commission additional time and opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of the Linkage fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that 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) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-BSE-2005-28 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2005-28. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-BSE-2005-28 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, 7 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 8 and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 9 which requires that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The Commission believes that the extension of the Linkage fee pilot until July 31, 2006 will give the Exchange and the Commission further opportunity to evaluate whether such fees are appropriate. 7 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change will preserve the Exchange's existing pilot program for Linkage fees without interruption as the Exchange and the Commission further consider the appropriateness of Linkage fees. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2005-28) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on July 31, 2006. 11 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4124 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52131; File No. SR-NASD-2005-093] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to NASD Rule 3370 July 27, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 20, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. NASD has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “non-controversial” rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act, 3 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to amend Rule 3370 to clarify that members must make certain affirmative determinations when effecting long sales and document compliance with those affirmative determination requirements. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 3370. [Purchases] *Prompt Receipt and Delivery of Securities*
(a)Purchases No member or person associated with a member may accept a customer's purchase order for any security unless it has first ascertained that the customer placing the order or its agent agrees to receive securities against payment in an amount equal to any execution, even though such an execution may represent the purchase of only a part of a larger order.
(b)Long Sales *No member or person associated with a member shall accept a long sale order from any customer in any equity security unless the order meets the requirements applicable to long sales set forth in Regulation SHO. To the extent a member or person associated with a member does not have physical possession or control of the securities, the member or person associated with a member must document, at the time the order is taken, the communication with the customer as to the present location of the securities in question, whether they are in good deliverable form and the customer's ability to deliver them to the member by settlement date. For purposes of this rule, the term “customer” includes a non-member broker-dealer.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On June 23, 2004, the SEC adopted certain provisions of a new short sale regulation, designated Regulation SHO. 4 Regulation SHO consists of, among other provisions, SEC Rule 200(g), requirements for marking sell order of equity securities, and SEC Rule 203(a), delivery requirements for long sales. 5 Specifically, SEC Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO requires that sell orders in all equity securities be marked either “long,” “short,” or “short exempt.” Pursuant to SEC Rule 200(g), an order can be marked “long” only when the seller owns the security being sold and the security either is in the physical possession or control of the broker-dealer or it is reasonably expected that the security will be in the physical possession or control of the broker-dealer no later than settlement. Subject to certain exceptions, SEC Rule 203(a) requires that a broker-dealer selling an equity security marked long will be able to deliver the security on settlement date without borrowing the security. Regulation SHO's long sale delivery requirements, together with the long sale order marking requirements, require broker-dealers, prior to executing the order, to confirm the customer's ownership of the security and its ability to deliver the security by settlement date. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004). 5 The compliance date for SEC Rule 200(g) and SEC Rule 203(a) was January 3, 2005. As noted in the adopting release for Regulation SHO, the SEC has indicated its expectation that self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) rules that overlapped with the provisions of Regulation SHO would be repealed. Accordingly, NASD repealed, among other rules, NASD Rule 3370(b) that, in part, required members to undertake the following obligations in connection with a long sale:
(1)To make an affirmative determination as to the location of the securities,
(2)to determine whether the securities are in deliverable form and in fact can be delivered within 3 business days; and
(3)to document such information in writing (collectively, the “affirmative determination requirements”). NASD staff has received inquiries as to whether the affirmative determination requirements continue to apply, given that these requirements are not explicitly provided in Regulation SHO. As a result, NASD is proposing to amend Rule 3370 to re-adopt expressly the affirmative determination requirements as they now relate to member obligations with respect to long sales under Regulation SHO. 6 NASD believes that this proposed amendment will clarify a member's obligations in connection with sale transactions that are marked long. Specifically, the member must comply with the requirements applicable to long sales in Regulation SHO and, to the extent the member or person associated with the member does not have physical possession or control of the securities, make and document, at the time the order is taken, an affirmative determination as to the location of the security, that they are in good deliverable form, and the customer's ability to deliver such securities on settlement date. As with Regulation SHO, absent countervailing circumstances, it may not be reasonable to rely on the representation of a customer that an order is “long” if the customer has had prior failures to deliver in a security. 6 Note: The deletion of the affirmative determination requirements in connection with the adoption of Regulation SHO was unintentional. NASD proposes to make the proposed rule change operative on the date of filing. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) 7 of the Act, which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must 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. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will more clearly state a member's obligations in connection with sale transactions that are marked long, and is consistent with the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph
(A)of Section 19(b)(3) 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6). 9 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to the thirty days after the date of filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. NASD has requested that the Commission waive the thirty day operative delay requirement to re-adopt expressly the affirmative determination requirements as they now relate to member obligations with respect to long sales under Regulation SHO. The Commission, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to make the proposed rule change effective as of the date of this order. 10 The Commission notes that the affirmative determination requirements with respect to member long sales were unintentionally deleted when NASD repealed rules that overlapped with the provisions of Regulation SHO. 10 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-093 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-093. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. 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 the File Number SR-NASD-2005-093 and should be submitted on or before August 23, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4117 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52141; File No. SR-NASD-2004-009] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Thereto To Modify Nasdaq's Clearly Erroneous Rule July 27, 2005. I. Introduction On January 21, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 to modify the Nasdaq's clearly erroneous rule. On August 23, 2004, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On May 5, 2005, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 On May 11, 2005, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 5 On May 16, 2005, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change. 6 The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 26, 2005. 7 On June 16, 2005, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 5 to the proposed rule change. 8 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 9 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* letter from Mary M. Dunbar, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, dated August 20, 2004 (“Amendment No. 1”). Amendment No. 1 replaced the original rule filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 replaced Amendment No. 1 in its entirety. 5 Amendment No. 3 revised incorrect cross-references in the rule text. 6 Amendment No. 4 revised an incorrect paragraph designation in the rule text. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51722 (May 20, 2005), 70 FR 30508. 8 *See* Amendment No. 5, which made technical corrections to the rule text, is a technical amendment that is not subject to notice and comment. The amended rule text proposed in Amendment No. 5 is available on the NASD's Web site ( *http://www.nasd.com* ), at the NASD's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 9 Nasdaq has represented that the proposed rule change would take effect on a date specified in a Head Trader Alert to its members, which date would be no later than three weeks after Commission approval of the proposal. Telephone call on July 27, 2005, between John Yetter, Senior Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, and Terri Evans, Special Counsel, Division, Commission. II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change NASD Rule 11890 governs the review and resolution of clearly erroneous transactions. The NASD Rule permits Nasdaq to review, at the request of a market participant, any transaction arising out of the use or operation of any execution or communication system owned or operated by Nasdaq to determine if such transaction is clearly erroneous. NASD Rule 11890 also permits Nasdaq to review transactions on Nasdaq's own motion under specific circumstances. The NASD Rule provides Nasdaq officials with the authority to nullify a transaction or modify one or more terms of the transaction. In addition, NASD Rule 11890 sets forth the procedures for review of a transaction to determine whether it is clearly erroneous and for appeal of a determination to the Market Operations Review Committee (“MORC”). The NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule 11890 to:
(1)Specify the supporting information that must be submitted in connection with a complaint requesting review of a transaction to determine whether it is clearly erroneous;
(2)establish minimum price deviation thresholds that would provide a “bright line” standard for determining whether a transaction is eligible for review;
(3)provide that complaints failing to meet minimum price deviation thresholds or documentation requirements would be rejected, and limit the grounds for review of such rejections by the MORC; and
(4)make several clarifying changes to the rule text. These changes are described in more detail below. Specify the Supporting Information To Be Submitted by a Complainant The proposed rule change would amend NASD Rule 11890 to require that a complaint, to be eligible for review, must include the following information: approximate time of transaction(s), security symbol, number of shares, price(s), contra broker(s) if transactions are not anonymous, the Nasdaq system used to execute the transactions, and the reason that the review is being sought. Establish Minimum Price Deviation Thresholds The proposed rule change also would establish minimum price deviation thresholds that would provide a standard for determining whether transactions are considered eligible for review. A transaction price that meets the minimum price threshold would not automatically trigger a clearly erroneous determination; however, if the transaction price does not meet the minimum price threshold, the transaction would not be considered as a clearly erroneous transaction. Thus, there would be a conclusive presumption that a transaction to buy
(sell)is not clearly erroneous unless its price is greater than (less than) the best offer (best bid) by an amount that equals or exceeds the minimum threshold set forth below: Inside price Minimum threshold $0-$0.99 $0.02 + (0.10 × Inside Price). $1.00-$4.99 $0.12 + (0.07 × (Inside Price—$1.00)). $5.00-$14.99 $0.40 + (0.06 × (Inside Price—$5.00)). $15 or more $1.00. For a transaction to buy
(sell)a Nasdaq listed security, the inside price would be the best offer (best bid) in Nasdaq at the time that the first share of the order that resulted in the disputed transaction was executed, and for a transaction to buy
(sell)an exchange-listed security, the inside price shall be the national best offer (best bid) at the time that the first share of the order that resulted in the disputed transaction was executed. 10 Nasdaq also proposes to adopt IM-11890-3 to assist market participants in understanding the minimum price deviation thresholds by providing an example of their application. 10 Trades in exchange-listed securities are reviewed under NASD Rule 5265, which incorporates Rule 11890 by reference. Reject, as Ineligible, Non-Conforming Clearly Erroneous Complaints In addition, in conjunction with providing standards as to required minimum documentation and minimum price deviation thresholds, the proposed rule would set forth clearly defined consequences for failing to meet the minimum documentation requirements. Members failing to meet the minimum documentation requirements within the initial 30-minute time frame for complainants to submit any supporting written information or failing to meet the minimum price deviation parameters would not be eligible to maintain an action under NASD Rule 11890, unless the member alleges a mistake of material fact. Nasdaq staff would notify the complainant immediately of any deficiencies in the filing so that the complainant can revise and resubmit the documentation, if possible, within the 30-minute time frame. In cases where a claim is not eligible for review because the transaction does not meet the minimum price deviation thresholds or because the complaint does not include the supporting documentation required by the proposed amendment to the rule, the party appealing to the MORC must allege a mistake of material fact upon which it believes the Nasdaq officer's determination was based. 11 The MORC would not substantively review an appeal of a determination that does not allege a mistake of material fact. Accordingly, if the MORC finds that a mistake has not been alleged in an appeal, Nasdaq is not required to notify the counterparty to the trade concerning the appeal or to submit the decision for further review by the MORC. If the MORC concludes that the appeal alleges a mistake of material fact, the counterparty would be notified and the determination would be reviewed by the same panel. If the MORC then finds that the determination was based on a mistake of material fact, the MORC would remand the matter to the Nasdaq officer for adjudication; otherwise, the determination would become final and binding. If the matter is remanded to the Nasdaq officer, the right of appeal to the MORC would be preserved. 11 For purposes of NASD Rule 11890, a decision of the MORC may be rendered by a panel of the MORC. In the case of a determination by a Nasdaq officer under Rule 11890(a)(2)(C) that a transaction is not eligible for review (including a review of the sufficiency of allegations contained in an appeal regarding such a determination), the panel may consist of one or more members of the MORC, provided that no more than 50 percent of the members of any panel are directly engaged in market making activity or employed by a member whose revenues from market making activity exceed ten percent of its total revenues. In all other cases, the panel shall consist of three or more members of the MORC, provided that no more than 50 percent of the members of any panel are directly engaged in market making activity or employed by a member firm whose revenues from market making activity exceed ten percent of its total revenues. Other Proposed Changes Finally, in order to clarify the Rule's text and expedite procedures under the Rule, Nasdaq is proposing the following additional changes: • The text of IM-11890-2 would be amended to reflect the proposed use of panels of one or more members of the MORC for purposes of reviewing determinations that a transaction is not eligible for review because the complainant failed to provide all the supporting information or the transaction price does not meet or exceed the applicable minimum deviation thresholds. • NASD Rule 11890 would be amended to provide that adjudication of a complaint or an appeal is not required if the party submitting the complaint or appeal withdraws it prior to the notification of counterparties. • NASD Rule 11890 would be amended to provide that appeals are focused solely on trades to which the party submitting the appeal is a party. Thus, for example, if Broker A submits a complaint regarding two separate trades with Broker B and Broker C, the trades are broken, and Broker B appeals but Broker C does not, the appeal would focus solely on the trade between Broker A and Broker B. • NASD Rule 11890 currently provides that facsimile machines are the preferred method for submitting materials regarding clearly erroneous adjudications. Nasdaq proposes to amend the rule to provide that parties should use such telecommunications methods as are announced from time to time through an NASD Notice to Members or a Nasdaq Head Trader Alert. • In light of the upcoming retirement of the Nasdaq Workstation II Service, Nasdaq also is proposing to replace a reference to that service with a more general reference to Nasdaq telecommunications protocols. • Cross references in NASD Rule 111890 would be amended to reflect preferred NASD style, and references to the “Committee” would be replaced with references to the “MORC.” III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, 12 and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act. 13 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section15A(b)(6) 14 of the Act in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 12 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). 13 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 14 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). The Commission believes that the amendments to NASD Rule 11890 to establish minimum price deviation thresholds and to specify the information necessary to support a complaint are designed to provide greater specificity and clarity with respect to the procedures Nasdaq must follow in determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous. The amendments also would provide Nasdaq with objective bases for rejecting clearly erroneous petitions that fail to provide complete information or that relate to a transaction at a price sufficiently close to the inside market that it should not be considered for review as a clearly erroneous transaction. The Commission believes that it is proper for Nasdaq's trade adjustment and nullification provisions to provide for objective standards in determining whether a transaction is eligible for clearly erroneous review and clear procedures in conducting such a review or an appeal of such review, because they would provide greater certainty to Nasdaq market participants who are parties to trades that are claimed to be clearly erroneous. In addition, Nasdaq officers who are called upon to review such trades would be provided with transparent standards and procedures when determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous. The amendments to NASD Rule 11890 also would require a Nasdaq market participant to allege a mistake of material fact in order to appeal a determination of a Nasdaq officer that a transaction is not eligible for review and would permit the use of panels of one or more members of the MORC for the purpose of reviewing such determinations. If the MORC panel concludes that a mistake of material fact has not been alleged in an appeal, the determination shall become final and binding and Nasdaq would not be required to notify the counterparty to the trade about the appeal. The Commission notes that, if the MORC concludes that an appeal alleges a mistake of material fact, the counterparty would be notified and a determination as to whether the appeal alleges a mistake of material fact would be reviewed by the MORC panel. In the event that the panel then determines that the appeal alleges a mistake of material fact, the complaint would be remanded to the Nasdaq officer and the right of either party to appeal would be preserved. The Commission believes that these procedures, particularly the requirement that the complaint be remanded to the Nasdaq officer and the preservation of the appeal right in the event the MORC panel determines that the appeal alleges a mistake of material fact, are designed so that NASD Rule 11890 is exercised an efficient manner, while the rights of the parties to an appeals process are preserved. Finally, the amendments to NASD Rule 11890 would eliminate the requirement for an adjudication of a complaint or an appeal if the party submitting the complaint or appeal withdraws it prior to the notification of counterparties and would provide that appeals be focused solely on trades to which the party submitting the appeal is a party. The Commission believes that these features of the amendments are designed to provide additional certainty to Nasdaq market participants that their trades would not be adjusted or nullified if they decide not to appeal a particular trade or trades. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 15 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2004-009), as amended by Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, is approved. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4120 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52148; File No. SR-NASD-2005-56] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Eliminating the Directed Order Process in the Nasdaq Market Center July 28, 2005. On April 21, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to eliminate the Directed Order Process in the Nasdaq Market Center. On May 2, 2005, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2005. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 4 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51668 (May 11, 2005), 70 FR 25869 (“Notice”). 4 The Commission notes that Nasdaq also proposed to eliminate the Directed Order Process in File No. SR-2004-181. The Commission has received one comment letter on that proposal. *See* letter to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, dated January 10, 2005. The comment letter raised issues regarding Nasdaq's application to register as a national securities exchange and did not specifically address any issues relating to the elimination of the Directed Order Process. The Commission expects Nasdaq to file an amendment to File No. S-NASD-2004-181 to reflect the Commission's approval of this proposed rule change. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered securities association. 5 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act 6 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 In approving this proposal, the Commission considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). Nasdaq proposes to eliminate the Directed Order Process from the Nasdaq Market Center. The Directed Order Process, which replicates the SelectNet functionality that pre-dated the implementation of the Nasdaq Market Center, operates independent of the Non-Directed Order Process. Specifically, the Directed Order Process is used by members to negotiate trades and allows orders to be executed at prices inferior to the best prices displayed in the Nasdaq Market Center. In addition, because the Directed Order Process is not integrated within the order execution algorithm for the Non-Directed Order Process, Directed Order trades are executed without consideration of the price-time priority of orders in the Non-Directed Order Process. Because the Directed Order Process allows orders to bypass limit orders that have price priority and/or time priority, its elimination will enhance the protection of limit orders in the Nasdaq Market Center. Accordingly, the Commission believes that this proposed rule change may result in increased liquidity. In addition, the Commission notes that Nasdaq represented that it believes that it is now appropriate to retire the Directed Order Process from the Nasdaq Market Center in light of the recent elimination of Nasdaq's pre-open Trade-or-Move requirements which obligated market participants to send Directed Orders containing a Trade-or-Move message. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-056) be, and hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4122 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52155; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-52] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Voluntary Supplemental Procedures for Selecting Arbitrators July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed amendments to its arbitration rules as described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change consists of an extension until November 30, 2005, of the Voluntary Supplemental Procedures for Selecting Arbitrators (“Supplemental Procedures”). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The proposed rule change is intended to extend until November 30, 2005 the Supplemental Procedures, which were approved by the Commission, most recently in SR-NYSE-2005-10, 5 for a six-month period ending July 31, 2005. 5 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 51085 (January 27, 2005), 70 FR 5716 (February 3, 2005). The Exchange currently has several methods by which arbitrators are assigned to cases, including the traditional method under NYSE Rule 607, pursuant to which Exchange staff appoints arbitrators to cases (the “Traditional Method”). On August 1, 2000, the Exchange implemented a two-year pilot program to allow parties, on a voluntary basis, to select arbitrators under two alternative methods (in addition to the Traditional Method). 6 Upon expiration of the two-year pilot, the Exchange renewed the pilot for an additional two years, which expired on July 31, 2004, 7 and then again for an additional six months through January 31, 2005, 8 and ultimately until July 31, 2005. 9 6 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 43214 (August 28, 2000), 65 FR 53247 (September 1, 2000) (SR-NYSE-00-34). 7 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 46372. *See also* Exchange Act Release No. 47929 (May 27, 2003), 68 FR 32791 (June 2, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-15). 8 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 49915 (June 25, 2004), 69 FR 39993 (July 1, 2004). 9 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 51085, *supra* note 5. Under the Supplemental Procedures, the first alternative to the Traditional Method is the Random List Selection method by which the parties are provided randomly generated lists of public-classified and securities-classified arbitrators. The parties have ten days to strike and rank the names on the lists. Based on mutual ranking of the lists, the highest-ranking arbitrators are invited to serve on the case. If a panel cannot be generated from the first list, a second list is generated, with three potential arbitrators for each vacancy, and one peremptory challenge available to each party for each vacancy. If vacancies remain after the second list has been processed, arbitrators are then randomly assigned to serve, subject only to challenges for cause. The second alternative to the Traditional Method is entitled Enhanced List Selection, in which six public-classified and three securities-classified arbitrators are selected, based on their qualifications and expertise, by Exchange staff. The lists are then sent to the parties. The parties have a limited number of strikes to use and are required to rank the arbitrators not stricken. Based on mutual ranking of the lists, the highest-ranking arbitrators are invited to serve on the case. Finally, the Supplemental Procedures provide that the Exchange will accommodate the use of any reasonable alternative method of selecting arbitrators that the parties decide upon, provided that the parties agree. Absent agreement as to the use of Random List Selection, Enhanced List Selection, or any other reasonable alternative method, the Traditional Method is used. The Exchange, pursuant to a separate filing, 10 is proposing amendments to NYSE Rule 607 which would, in effect, make permanent a variation of the pilot program described herein. Pending Commission approval of those amendments, the Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Supplemental Procedures for an additional four months, until November 30, 2005. 10 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 51863 (June 16, 2005) 70 FR 36451 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-02). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 11 of the Act in that it promotes just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that members and member organizations and the public have a fair and impartial forum for the resolution of their disputes. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 Act. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, 14 the proposal may not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and the Exchange must file notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days beforehand. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become immediately effective upon filing. 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). The Commission is exercising its authority to waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 15 In this regard, the Commission notes that the proposal is the extension of a pilot program that has been in effect at the Exchange since August 2000. The Commission has also published for comment amendments to NYSE Rule 607 which would, in effect, make permanent a variation of the pilot program described herein. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative immediately. Nothing in the current notice should be interpreted as suggesting the Commission is predisposed to approving on a permanent basis the proposed variation of the pilot program. 15 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2005-52 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-52. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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-NYSE-2005-52 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4123 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52151; File No. SR-PCX-2005-86] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Linkage Fee Pilot Program July 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 21, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis for a pilot period through July 31, 2006. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services to extend until July 31, 2006 the current pilot program regarding transaction fees charged for trades executed on the Exchange that are submitted through the intermarket option linkage (“Linkage”). 3 The text of the proposed fee schedule is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.pacificex.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 3 At the request of the Exchange, the Commission staff made a change to clarify the statement regarding the orders to which the transaction fees apply. Telephone conversation between Steven Matlin, Senior Counsel, Exchange, and Kim Allen, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, on July 26, 2005. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange 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, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend for one year the pilot program establishing Exchange fees for Principal (“P”) Orders and Principal Acting as Agent (“P/A”) Orders executed on the Exchange that are submitted through Linkage. The fees currently are effective for a pilot program set to expire on July 31, 2005, and this proposal would extend such fees through July 31, 2006. The two fees the Exchange charges for P and P/A orders are: The basic execution fee for trading on the Exchange; and a $.05 comparison fee, each per contract side. These are the same fees that all PCX Option Trading Permit Holders pay for non-customer transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange does not charge for the execution of Satisfaction Orders sent through Linkage and is not proposing to charge for such orders. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 5 in particular, in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities for the purpose of executing P/A Orders or P Orders that are routed to the Exchange from other market centers. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-PCX-2005-86 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-86. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-PCX-2005-86 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2005. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 7 and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The Commission believes that the extension of the Linkage fee pilot until July 31, 2006 will give the Exchange and the Commission further opportunity to evaluate whether such fees are appropriate. 6 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15.U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). The Commission finds good cause pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register.** The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change will preserve the Exchange's existing pilot program for Linkage fees without interruption as the Exchange and the Commission further consider the appropriateness of Linkage fees. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-86) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on July 31, 2006. 10 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4126 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning China's Compliance with WTO Commitments AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning China's compliance with its WTO commitments. SUMMARY: The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC)will convene a public hearing and seek public comment to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)in the preparation of its annual report to the Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). DATES: Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention, as well as a copy of their testimony, by noon, Thursday, September 1, 2005. Written comments are due by noon, Tuesday, September 6, 2005. A hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, September 14, 2005. ADDRESSES: *Submissions by electronic mail: FR0437@USTR.EOP.GOV.* *Submissions by facsimile:* Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative,
(202)395-6143. The public is strongly encouraged to submit documents electronically rather than by facsimile. (See requirements for submissions below.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedural questions concerning written comments or participation in the public hearing, contact Gloria Blue,
(202)395-3475. All other questions should be directed to Terrence J. McCartin, Senior Director of Monitoring and Enforcement for China,
(202)395-3900, or Stephen S. Kho, Associate General Counsel,
(202)395-3582. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background China became a member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-286), USTR is required to submit, by December 11 of each year, a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and any bilateral commitments made to the United States. In accordance with section 421, and to assist it in preparing this year's report, the TPSC is hereby soliciting public comment. Last year's report is available on USTR's Internet Web site (at *http://www.ustr.gov/World_Regions/North_Asia/China/ Section_Index.html* ). The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO Agreement. The Protocol and Working Party Report can be found on the Department of Commerce Web page, *http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/WTOAccessionPackage.htm* , or on the WTO Web site, *http://docsonline.wto.org* (document symbols: WT/L/432, WT/MIN(01)/3, WT/MIN(01)/3/Add.1, WT/MIN(01)/3/Add.2). 2. Public Comment and Hearing USTR invites written comments and/or oral testimony of interested persons on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas:
(a)Trading rights;
(b)import regulation ( *e.g.* , tariffs, tariff-rate quotas, quotas, import licenses);
(c)export regulation;
(d)internal policies affecting trade ( *e.g.* , subsidies, standards and technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, government procurement, trade-related investment measures, taxes and charges levied on imports and exports);
(e)intellectual property rights (including intellectual property rights enforcement);
(f)services;
(g)rule of law issues ( *e.g.* , transparency, judicial review, uniform administration of laws and regulations) and status of legal reform; and
(h)other WTO commitments. Persons submitting written comments should identify the commitments discussed therein by listing one or more of these categories on the first page of the comments. Written comments must be received no later than noon, Tuesday, September 6, 2005. A hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, in Room 1, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. If necessary, the hearing will continue on the next day. Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention by noon, Thursday, September 1, 2005. The notification should include:
(1)the name, address, and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony; and
(2)a short (one or two paragraph) summary of the presentation, including the commitments at issue and, as applicable, the product(s) (with HTSUS numbers), service sector(s), or other subjects to be discussed. A copy of the testimony must accompany the notification. Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the TPSC. All documents should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in section 3 below. 3. Requirements for Submissions In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, USTR strongly urges and prefers electronic (e-mail) submissions in response to this notice. In the event that an e-mail submission is impossible, submissions should be made by facsimile. Persons making submissions by e-mail should use the following subject line: “China WTO” followed by (as appropriate) “Written Comments,” “Notice of Testimony,” or “Testimony.” Documents should be submitted as either Adobe PDF, WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel. For any document containing business confidential information submitted electronically, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Persons who make submissions by e-mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Written comments, notices of testimony, and testimony will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and nonconfidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling
(202)395-6186. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. General information concerning USTR may be obtained by accessing its Internet Web site ( *http://www.ustr.gov* ). Carmen Suro-Bredie, Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. 05-15365 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 10
Traces to 10 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
- National market system for securities; securities information processors§ 78k–1
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Registered securities associations§ 78o–3
- Short title§ 78a
6 references not yet in our index
- 17 CFR 240.15
- 15 USC 78
- 17 CFR 240.12
- 17 CFR 240.11
- 17 CFR 240.19
- Pub. L. 106-286
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning China's compliance with its WTO commitments
Cite17 CFR 240.15
Cite15 USC 78
Cite17 CFR 240.12
Cites 16 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources