Notices. Notice of availability
19,222 words·~87 min read·
/register/2005/10/07/05-20158A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530] Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Arizona Public Service Company (the licensee) to partially withdraw its May 28, 2003, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License No. NPF-41, NF-51, and NPF-74 for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed amendments would modify several surveillance requirements
(SRs)in Technical Specifications
(TSs)3.8.1 and 3.8.4 on alternating current and direct current sources, respectively, for plant operation. The revised SRs would have notes deleted or modified to allow the SRs to be performed, or partially performed, in reactor modes that are currently not allowed by the TSs. The current SRs are not allowed to be performed in Modes 1 and 2. Several of the current SRs also cannot be performed in Modes 3 and 4. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40709). However, the licensee partially withdrew the proposed change in two separate letters. By letter dated June 23, 2004, the licensee withdrew the proposed changes to the notes in SR 3.8.4.7 and SR 3.8.4.8 and by letter dated September 27, 2005, the licensee withdrew the proposed changes to SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, and 3.8.1.14. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated May 28, 2003, and the licensee's letters dated June 23, 2004, and September 27, 2005, which partially withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mel B. Fields, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-5529 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-309, License No. DPR-36] Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company; Notice of Release of Land from the Jurisdiction of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's Facility Operating License No. DPR-36 On March 15, 2004, as supplemented by letters on September 2, 2004, and May 16, 2005, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee) submitted a request to amend its license to release the remaining land under License No. DPR-36 with the exception of the land where the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) is located, and a 3.17 acre parcel of land adjacent to the ISFSI. Notification of the amendment request was published in the **Federal Registe** r on May 5, 2004 (Vol. 69, No. 101, Page 69769). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)staff reviewed the Final Status Survey Report
(FSSR)and concludes that:
(i)Dismantlement and decontamination activities were performed in accordance with the approved License Termination Plan (LTP), and
(ii)Maine Yankee's FSSR Supplements 1-10A demonstrate that the land to be released from Facility Operating License No. DPR-36, meets the radiological criteria for unrestricted use, as defined by 10 CFR 20.1402, by meeting site release criteria of 10 millirem (Total Effective Dose Equivalent
(TEDE)per year over background (all pathways) and 4 millirem (as distinguishable from background) TEDE per year for groundwater sources of drinking water in accordance with the approved LTP. Therefore, NRC is releasing all land from the jurisdiction of license DPR-36 except the land where the ISFSI is located, and a 3.17 acre parcel of land adjacent to the ISFSI. For further details with respect to this action, see the license amendment request dated March 15, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated September 2, 2004, and May 16, 2005, and the Environmental Assessment dated February 12, 2003, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040990045, ML042600417, ML051440411, and ML030340122). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of September, 2005. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-5527 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-27] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed Exemption The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 72.72(d) to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or applicant). The requested exemption would allow PG&E to maintain a single set of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related Greater than Class C
(GTCC)waste records in accordance with the requirements of its NRC-approved Quality Assurance program, which satisfies the criteria of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant
(HBPP)in Humboldt County, California. Environmental Assessment
(EA)Identification of Proposed Action In its application for an ISFSI license, submitted on December 15, 2003, PG&E requested an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 72.72(d); which states in part that, “Records of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste containing special nuclear material meeting the requirements in paragraph
(a)of this section must be kept in duplicate. The duplicate set of records must be kept at a separate location sufficiently remote from the original records that a single event would not destroy both sets of records.” The proposed action before the Commission is whether to grant this exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7. Need for the Proposed Action The applicant stated that ISFSI spent-fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste records will be maintained in a manner consistent with the records of the HBPP, which are stored in accordance with the NRC-approved Quality Assurance
(QA)program. The approved QA program for the HBPP complies with the requirements established in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, which incorporates by reference the specific recordkeeping requirements in 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1). PG&E did not request exemption from the records retention period requirements of 10 CFR 72.72(d). The applicant seeks to provide consistency in recordkeeping practices for the records related to the proposed Humboldt Bay ISFSI and those records currently maintained under the HBPP QA program. The exemption would also preclude the need for PG&E to construct and operate a separate, second records storage facility to store a duplicate set of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste records. In its application, PG&E indicated that the NRC-approved QA program for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant will be applied to all Humboldt Bay ISFSI activities, and that program meets the provisions of ANSI N45.2.9-1974. The requirements in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 have been endorsed by the NRC as an acceptable method of satisfying the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, which states, in part, that “[c]onsistent with applicable regulatory requirements [including 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1)], the applicant shall establish requirements concerning record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility.” Further requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plant records are provided in 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1), which states, in part, that, “The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.” ANSI N.45.2.9-1974 also satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 72.72 by providing for adequate maintenance of records regarding the identity and history of the spent fuel in storage. Such records would be subject to, and need to be protected from, the same types of degradation mechanisms or loss as nuclear power plant Quality Assurance records. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action An exemption from the requirement to store a duplicate set of ISFSI records at a separate location has no impact on the environment. Storage of records does not change the methods by which spent fuel will be handled and stored at the HBPP ISFSI and does not affect the potential for radiological or non-radiological effluents associated with the ISFSI. Alternative to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Consulted On August 30, 2005, the NRC staff discussed the environmental assessment for the proposed action with Ms. Barbara Byron, Senior Nuclear Policy Advisor for the California Energy Commission (CEC). On September 14, 16, and 27, 2005, the staff provided additional details regarding the proposed storage of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI records, in response to Ms. Byron's requests for clarification. The CEC had no further comments on the EA. The NRC staff has determined that a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action is administrative or procedural in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties because it is an administrative or procedural action. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from 10 CFR 72.72(d), so that PG&E may store spent fuel records for the proposed ISFSI in a single records storage facility, in accordance with its NRC-approved Quality Assurance program (which satisfies the criteria of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, and 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1)), will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate, and that an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption is not necessary. For further details with respect to this exemption request, see the PG&E ISFSI license application, and the accompanying Safety Analysis Report, dated December 15, 2003. The request for exemption was docketed under 10 CFR 72, Docket No. 72-27. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's “Rules of Practice,” final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action are publicly available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-5530 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-34325] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Release of Facility for Unrestricted Use for the Department of Veterans Affairs Chicago Health Care System Lakeside Campus—Lakeside Hospital Building, Chicago, IL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone:
(630)829-9871; fax number:
(630)515-1259; or by e-mail at *wgs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering issuing a license amendment to Material License No. 03-23853-01VA issued to the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA)(the licensee), to authorize release of its Chicago Health Care System, Lakeside Campus—Lakeside Hospital Building in Chicago, Illinois for unrestricted use, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the release of the licensee's Chicago, Illinois facility for unrestricted use. The DVA has occupied the Lakeside Hospital Building since it was built in about 1955, and was authorized to use byproduct, source, and special nuclear material for medical diagnosis, therapy, and research beginning in 1957. The Chicago, Illinois facility is a permittee under the DVA NRC Master Material License
(MML)Number 03-23853-01VA, and on April 27, 2005, requested the NRC approve the release of the facility for unrestricted use. The approval is consistent with a November 10, 2004, Letter of Understanding
(LOU)between the NRC and the DVA for DVA permittees. The LOU requires the DVA to submit for NRC review, permittee requests for the release of buildings for unrestricted use where radioactive materials with a half-life greater than 120 days were used. The DVA identified six isotopes of concern with half-lives greater than 120 days that it used in the Lakeside Hospital Building since 1957: hydrogen-3, carbon-14, chlorine-36, cobalt-60, nickel-63, and cesium-137. The DVA has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the licensee termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendment. Based on its review, the staff determined there were no radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the action since no radiological remediation activities were required to complete the proposed action. However, the proposed action excludes approval for the release of an area of the facility where nuclear medicine activities are being performed in compliance with 10 CFR 35.100 and 35.200, an activity in which only short-lived radioactive isotopes are used (i.e., isotopes with a half-life less than 120 days). The licensee verified compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 in this area for isotopes with half-lives longer than 120 days. Because the LOU allows the DVA to release facilities for unrestricted use without NRC approval if only isotopes of less than 120 days were used, when the VA ceases all licensable activities related to the diagnostic nuclear medicine operation, the VA may release that area for unrestricted use without NRC approval. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the site for unrestricted use. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed amendment are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: The DVA letter dated April 27, 2005 (Accession No. ML051190353); the Final Status Survey Report, VA Chicago—Lakeside Campus, Medical Sciences Building, December 8, 2004 (Accession No. ML051190353); and the EA summarized above (Accession No. ML052690312). If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 28th day of September 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Region III. [FR Doc. E5-5528 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52524; No. SR-DTC-2005-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Clarify Procedures Relating to the Destruction of Certain Non-Transferable Securities Certificates That Are Held in DTC's Internal Removal Account Known as PREM September 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 August 18, 2005, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by DTC. DTC has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of this rule filing is to clarify certain procedures with respect to an earlier filing submitted by DTC and approved by the Commission that allowed DTC to destroy certain non-transferable securities certificates. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B, and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of this rule filing is to clarify certain procedures pertaining to the previously approved File No. SR-DTC-2003-09. 5 In File No. SR-DTC-2003-09, DTC proposed a new service designed to allow DTC to destroy certain certificates representing positions in securities for which transfer agent services are no longer available (“non-transferable certificates”). At the time of the original filing, DTC held 1.2 million such certificates, representing nearly 22% of DTC's entire certificate inventory. DTC instituted the Destruction of Non-Transferable Securities Certificates Program (“Program”) in order to eliminate the significant risks and costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of custody, control, and audit of these non-transferable certificates. 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49930 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 41003 (July 7, 2004). Prior to instituting the Program, many participants used DTC's Position Removal (“PREM”) function to have positions in issues of non-transferable certificates moved from their participant accounts to a DTC internal PREM account. However, the certificates representing those positions were still held in DTC's vaults with all the risks and costs associated with storing such certificates, maintaining the related accounts, and monitoring the status of such issues. Under the Program, DTC extended the PREM process by indicating that using PREM to move a position constituted an acknowledgement by the participant that DTC could cease crediting the security to the participant's securities account and that DTC could at its option and based upon its own criteria include the certificates underlying the position in a certificate destruction program. In File No. DTC-2003-09, DTC indicated that it would implement the Program “beginning first with issues in which all participant positions have been put in PREM.” However, the Commission's approval order of File No. DTC-2003-09 stated that “DTC will implement this new program with issues in which all participant positions have been moved to PREM.” DTC's intent in the original filing was to start the Program with fully PREMed issues but to thereafter continue with those issues which had not been fully PREMed. The purpose of the present filing is to clarify this point and to make clear that DTC did not in File No. DTC-2003-09 intend that in the future it would be a prerequisite for the destruction of a particular issue of non-transferable certificates that every participant must have moved their respective positions in that issue to a PREM account. DTC wishes to make clear that it may destroy any non-transferable certificates for which the positions have been PREMed even if all participants have not yet moved their positions into PREM. DTC will maintain a certificate or certificates representing those positions that have not yet been entered into PREM. DTC has no intention of clarifying or modifying any other part of File No. DTC-2003-09 with this filing. DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because the change is designed to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, including the transfer of record ownership, and the safeguarding of securities and funds.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC 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, in the public interest, and for the protection of investors.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 6 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 7 thereunder because it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. At any time within sixty 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, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). 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-DTC-2005-10 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-DTC-2005-10. 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web site at *http://www.DTCC.com.* 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-DTC-2005-10 and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5524 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52549; File No. SR-NASD-2005-115] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend NASD Rule 11890 October 3, 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 September 22, 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”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” 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 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 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 Nasdaq proposes to clarify the scope of a recent amendment to NASD Rule 11890. Nasdaq proposes to implement the proposed rule change on September 26, 2005. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics;* proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 5 5 The proposed rule change is marked to show changes from the rule as it appears in the electronic NASD Manual available at *http://www.nasd.com.* 11890. Clearly Erroneous Transactions
(a)Authority to Review Transactions Pursuant to Complaint of Market Participant
(1)No change.
(2)Procedures for Reviewing Transactions (A)-(B) No change.
(C)Following the expiration of the period for submission of supporting material, a Nasdaq officer shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review. A complaint shall not be eligible for review under paragraph
(a)unless:
(i)the complainant has provided all of the supporting information required under paragraph (a)(2)(B), and
(ii)*For trades executed between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time,* [T] *t* he price of transaction to buy
(sell)that is the subject of the complaint 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 shall 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. (D)-(G) No change.
(b)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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 NASD Rule 11890(a) allows designated officers of Nasdaq to declare transactions that arise out of the use or operation of Nasdaq execution or communications systems to be clearly erroneous and to nullify or modify the terms of such transactions. In SR-NASD-2004-009, 6 Nasdaq established a minimum price deviation threshold to provide a “bright line” rule standard for determining when transactions are considered eligible for review. A transaction price that meets these thresholds does not automatically trigger a clearly erroneous determination, but if the transaction price does not meet these thresholds the transaction will not be considered for clearly erroneous review. Thus, there is now 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: 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52141 (July 27, 2005), 70 FR 44709 (August 3, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-009). Inside price Minimum threshold $0-$.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 Nasdaq proposes an amendment to NASD Rule 11890 to clarify that the minimum price deviation thresholds are applicable only to transactions executed during regular market hours, *i.e.* , between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. According to Nasdaq, this amendment reflects the fact that the analysis conducted by Nasdaq to determine the appropriate levels for the thresholds was based on pricing during normal market hours, and that therefore application of the thresholds during other trading sessions is not consistent with the intent underlying the rule. Nasdaq believes that, during pre-market and post-market trading sessions, the inside price of many stocks may not fully reflect trading interest in the stock, since the range of market participants in these trading sessions is far more limited than during regular market hours. As a result, a trade that occurs at a price that deviates significantly from a stock's trading range during the most recent regular market session may nevertheless be sufficiently close to the pre-market or post-market inside price that it would not meet the minimum deviation threshold for the stock. Because the thresholds established by Nasdaq were based on analysis of trading patterns during regular market hours, Nasdaq believes that the rule should be clarified by limiting the thresholds' application to such hours. Nasdaq believes the change would result in a larger number of transactions being eligible for review under NASD Rule 11890, since transactions occurring during pre-market and post-market sessions would always be eligible for adjudication under the rule unless the market participant seeking an adjudication failed to provide the information required under NASD Rule 11890(a)(2)(B) ( *i.e.* , the approximate time of transaction(s), security symbol, number of shares, price(s), contra broker(s) if the transactions are not anonymous, Nasdaq system used to execute the transactions, and the reason the review is being sought). 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 7 in general and with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change would ensure that NASD Rule 11890's minimum price deviation thresholds do not bar adjudication of clearly erroneous petitions in circumstances where the wider spreads prevailing in pre-market and post-market trading may make the application of such thresholds excessively restrictive. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 8 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq 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. 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 foregoing proposed rule change is subject to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 10 because the proposal:
(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 prior to 30 days after the date of filing or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would make immediately eligible for adjudication clearly erroneous petitions in circumstances where the wider spreads prevailing in pre-market and post-market trading otherwise may make the application of NASD Rule 11890's minimum price deviation thresholds overly restrictive. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective upon filing with the Commission. 11 11 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for 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. 12 12 *See* Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 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-2005-115 on the subject line. 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 SR-NASD-2005-115. 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 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 File Number SR-NASD-2005-115 and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5533 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52544; File No. SR-NASD-2005-030] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (“Form BR”) and Amendments to the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4”) and the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (“Form U5”) September 30, 2005. I. Introduction On March 11, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “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 adopt the Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (“Form BR”) 3 and to make conforming changes to the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4”) and the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (“Form U5”). On May 12, 2005, NASD amended the proposed rule change (“Amendment No. 1”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 At the request of the NASD, the Commission staff has made corrections to the title of the Form BR, which was inadvertently shown in the initial filing and Amendment No. 2 to the filing, *see infra* note 7, as “Uniform Branch Office Form.” Telephone conversation between Richard Pullano, Associate Vice President/Chief Counsel, Registration and Disclosure, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on September 20, 2005. The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 2, 2005. 4 The Commission received six comment letters on the proposal, as amended. 5 On August 17, 2005, NASD submitted a response to the comment letters. 6 On August 18, 2005, NASD amended the proposed rule change (“Amendment No. 2”). 7 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1; grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 2; and solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 2. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51742 (May 25, 2005), 70 FR 32386. *See also* Correction, 70 FR 48802 (August 19, 2005) (including language inadvertently omitted from the first sentence of footnote 3). 5 *See* letters from Mario DiTrapani, President, Association of Registration Management, dated June 22, 2005 (“ARM Letter”); Michael Pagano, Chief Compliance Officer, 1st Global, dated June 23, 2005 (“1st Global Letter”); Sandra T. Masek Ray, CRCP, Executive Vice President/Chief Compliance Officer, Rhodes Securities, Inc., dated June 23, 2005 (“Rhodes Letter”); Robert S. Rosenthal, Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, MML Investors Services, Inc., dated June 23, 2005 (“MML Letter”); Franklin L. Widmann, President and Chief, New Jersey Bureau of Securities, North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., dated July 12, 2005 (“NASAA Letter”); and Carl B. Wilkerson, Vice President & Chief Counsel, Securities & Litigation, American Council of Life Insurers, dated June 23, 2005 (“ACLI Letter”). In addition, the Commission received a comment letter on SR-NASD-2005-012, a filing dealing with the same substance but that had been rejected by the Commission. The letter raised a number of technical concerns which have been addressed by the NASD or will be addressed during the implementation phase for Form BR. 6 *See* letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General Counsel, NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division, Commission, dated August 17, 2005 (“NASD Response Letter”). 7 *See* discussion of Amendment No. 2 in Section II, Description of Proposed Rule Change, *infra.* II. Description of Proposed Rule Change NASD proposes to establish Form BR, a uniform branch office registration form developed by a working group composed of representatives from NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) and various states (hereinafter referred to as the “Working Group”). 8 The proposed Form BR would enable firms to register branch offices electronically with NASD, the NYSE, other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), and states, as applicable, through a single filing with the Central Registration Depository (“CRD®,” the “CRD system,” or “Web CRD”). In addition, the proposed Form BR eliminates the need for Schedule E of the Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (“Form BD”), the current NYSE Branch Office Application Form, and certain state branch office forms. 9 8 The NYSE also filed a proposed rule change to adopt the Form BR, which is substantially similar to NASD's proposal. The Commission is simultaneously approving the NYSE's proposed rule change. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52543 (September 30, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-13). 9 Currently, broker-dealers register or report branch offices or other business locations on Schedule E of the Form BD. NYSE member firms are required to submit the NYSE Branch Office Application Form to register a branch office with the NYSE. In addition, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada and Vermont have separate branch office forms that request similar information for firms seeking to register a branch office in those states. Moreover, more than 20 states require broker-dealers to submit a “notice filing” when a firm opens or closes a branch office. With the implementation of Form BR, the NYSE would retire the current NYSE Branch Office Application Form. Seven states, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Texas, Vermont and West Virginia, also have indicated that they plan to use the Form BR. Other jurisdictions that currently require “notice filings” for branch openings and closings, including Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin, have indicated that they also expect to use the Form BR. Telephone conversation between John Veator, Director, Regulatory User Liaison, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division, Commission and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on September 20, 2005. The Division has granted no-action relief indicating that it will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under Rules 15b1-1, 15b3-1, 15Ba2-2, and 15Ca2-1 under the Act for broker-dealers that file the Form BR, and do not complete Schedule E, or file amendments to Schedule E, of the Form BD, as of the date on which the transition to the Form BR begins and the CRD® no longer accepts Schedule E filings, which is currently anticipated to be October 15, 2005. *See* letter from Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Division, Commission, to Patrice M. Gliniecki, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, NASD, dated September 30, 2005. The Working Group derived the majority of questions on the proposed Form BR from questions currently on one or more of the existing branch office forms and added questions to elicit additional information that it believed would be of regulatory value to SROs and states. To the extent possible, the proposed Form BR uses the same terms as those used in existing uniform forms. 10 10 The “Explanation of Terms” section of proposed Form BR would include definitions of additional terms used in the context of branch office registration and reporting, such as “closing,” “person-in-charge,” “regular branch,” “small branch,” “supervisor,” and “withdrawal.” The NYSE made slight modifications to the definitions of “small branch” and “regular branch” that were published in NASD's *Notice to Members* 04-55 to conform to its interpretive materials. The proposed Form BR is only one component of a broader project regarding the registration of branch offices through the CRD system. NASD is planning enhancements to the CRD system to coincide with the implementation of Form BR that would enable firms to designate, and users to identify, the branch office(s) in which a registered person works. These enhancements would enable registered persons to submit the name of the branch office(s) with which they are associated via the Form U4. Firms would be able to obtain a report via Web CRD that would list individuals who are currently associated with a branch or who were associated with a branch during a specific time period. Regulators also would be able to obtain reports that would list branch offices within a firm as well as registered individuals in those branches. NASD also proposes to make certain conforming and technical changes to the current Form U4 and Form U5. Highlights of the Proposed Form BR There are nine sections of the proposed Form BR, as described below. The Form BR would permit applicants ( *i.e.* , firms) to:
(1)Apply for approval of or report a branch office (an “initial” filing);
(2)amend information previously reported (an “amendment” filing);
(3)terminate a branch office registration (a “closing” filing); or
(4)withdraw an initial filing before approval by a jurisdiction or SRO (a “withdrawal” filing). Section 1—General Information Section 1 would report the applicant's CRD number, name, address, billing code, branch address, and telephone number. NASD would pre-populate the applicant's CRD number, name, and address. Section 2—Registration/Notice Filing/Type of Office Section 2 would ask the applicant to state where the branch would be registered (or notice filed), the type of branch office registration, and whether it would be an NASD Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (“OSJ”). If it is not an OSJ, the applicant would be required to provide the CRD branch number, or firm billing code, for the OSJ that has supervisory responsibility over the branch and the CRD number of the supervisor in charge of that OSJ. Consistent with the concept of a uniform form, Section 2 of the proposed Form BR would give applicants the opportunity to designate whether the branch office filing is being made on behalf of a broker-dealer (“BD”), an investment adviser (“IA”), or both. This feature would enable firms to register or report IA branches in states that require such registration and reporting. Section 2 also would ask for NYSE Small Branch information. Section 3—Types of Activities/Other Business Names/Websites Section 3 would collect information with respect to the types of financial industry activities conducted by the applicant and any investment-related activities conducted by associated persons at the branch location. Section 3 also would ask for the names being used by any associated person to conduct investment-related activities at the branch office other than those names disclosed on the applicant's Form BD or Uniform Application for Investment Adviser Registration (“Form ADV”). Section 3 also would ask for the website addresses used by the branch office other than the applicant's primary Web site address. Section 4—Branch Office Arrangements Consistent with questions currently asked on Schedule E of the Form BD, Section 4 of the proposed Form BR would elicit information on branch office arrangements, including space sharing arrangements and liability for expenses. Section 4 would not require applicants to report insurance agency agreements with the main office pursuant to which the branch operates. Section 5—Associated Individuals 11 11 NASD notes that the title of Section 5—“Associated Individuals”—refers to registered individuals who are associated with the particular branch office. Applicants would not be required to report the names of associated persons who are not registered. Section 5, which would have to be completed only for initial branch office registration filings, would ask for the names and CRD numbers of registered persons associated with a branch. 12 Individuals identified by the firm in this section would populate a dynamic “branch roster” of registered persons in Web CRD, which would be made available to firms. Once the branch has been established, changes to the branch roster would automatically be made through Web CRD when:
(1)The “Office of Employment Address” question on the Form U4 is amended when an individual leaves a branch for another branch; or
(2)the Form U5 is filed when an individual leaves a firm. Firms would be able to print a report, among other reports, that would list registered individuals who are currently associated with a branch, or who were associated with the branch during a specific time period. This functionality should facilitate firms' compliance with one of the requirements contained in SEC Rule 17a-4(l). 13 12 Firms would be required to enter the CRD number, and then the name would populate in the field. 13 17 CFR 240.17a-4(l). SEC Rule 17a-4(l) requires certain records for the most recent two-year period to be maintained at the office to which they relate. Section 6—NYSE Branch Information Only firms registered with the NYSE would be able to view and would be required to complete Section 6. The proposed Form BR would incorporate the information elicited on the NYSE's current Branch Office Application Form and Office Space-Sharing Form. The CRD system would interact with the NYSE's branch office system on NYSE branch office registration filings. The NYSE's current protocol for requesting approval for new branch offices would continue with the proposed Form BR. NYSE members would use Form BR to request such approvals, and the information provided by NYSE members would be transmitted to the NYSE, which, in turn, would communicate its determinations ( *e.g.* , approvals) to the requesting NYSE firms through the CRD system. Section 7—Branch Closing Section 7 would be completed by a firm only upon the closing of a branch office registered with a jurisdiction or an SRO. Information in Section 7 would include the date operations ceased, or will cease, the location of the branch's books and records, and the name and telephone number of the contact person. Because branch offices located close to state borders often move from one state to another, the proposed Form BR and the CRD system have been designed to accommodate such moves through amendment filings. Specifically, a firm would be able to file a single Form BR amendment that would both close the branch in one state and register or notice file the branch in another state that also has a registration or notice filing requirement. The Specific Instructions and notifications (the latter triggered by the state address change) in Section 1 (General Information) and Section 2 (Registration/Notice Filing/Type of Office) would advise applicants that the amendment has both changed the branch address to another state and closed the branch in the first state. In addition, the amendment would serve as a request to open a branch in the state to which the branch has moved if it is a state that requires registration or notice filing of branches. 14 14 NASD states that it would view a change in location simply as an amendment filing, not a request to open a new branch. Section 8—Branch Withdrawal Firms would be required to complete Section 8 only upon withdrawal of a pending application. Information in this section would include the date of withdrawal, the reason for withdrawal, and the name and telephone number of the contact person. Section 9—Signature Section 9 would be the signature page. The language on the signature page would be consistent with the current attestations on the Form U4 and the Form BD. Conforming and Technical Changes to Forms U4 and U5 NASD is proposing conforming changes to the Forms U4 and U5 to fully integrate the branch office registration and reporting process through the CRD system. First, NASD is proposing changes to the “Office of Employment Address” to parallel the information reported on the Form BR, and to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the link between registered representatives and their branches. When completing the Form U4, the firm/individual would be asked to select the branch office(s) from which the registered person will work based on the list of branch offices identified by the firm (through the filing of Forms BR). Once the registered locations are selected, CRD® would populate the “Office of Employment Address” on the General Information screen on the Form U4 for each registered person with the following data elements based on information reported on the Form BR: CRD Branch Number, NYSE Branch Code Number, address, and start and end dates. The Form U5 would display the same information. 15 If the individual is not located at a registered branch office, the firm must enter the business address of the location at which the individual is employed and the location from which the individual is supervised. 15 NASD states that it would remove from the Forms U4 and U5 the Specific Instructions and form fields that currently require reporting of information that would be provided via Form BR and would pre-populate the appropriate fields on the Forms U4 and U5. NASD is also proposing to add a question to the Form U4 to elicit whether the individual has an independent contractor relationship with the firm. Information regarding independent contractors currently is elicited on Schedule E of Form BD. The Working Group initially proposed to include this question on the Form BR but subsequently decided that the independent contractor question would be more appropriately placed on the Form U4. In addition, NASD is proposing changes to the Specific Instructions on the Forms U4 and U5 to reflect the proposed changes to the forms. NASD is proposing other technical changes to the Forms U4 and U5 as well. Specifically, NASD proposes to:
(1)Add to the Forms U4 and U5 registration categories that the Commission has previously approved; 16
(2)reorganize the electronic filing representations on the Form U4, Section 6 (Regulatory Requests with Affiliated Firms) for submitting a fingerprint for registration with an affiliated firm, so that the representations would follow a more logical order (the content of the representations would not change) and modify the Specific Instructions regarding the same;
(3)amend the Forms U4 and U5 to reflect the change in name of the Cincinnati Stock Exchange
(CSE)to the National Stock Exchange (NSX); 17 and
(4)add new instructions on the Form U5 explaining the circumstances under which the “Office of Employment Address” would be pre-populated. 16 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50162 (August 6, 2004), 69 FR 50406 (August 16, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-078) (Research Analyst
(RS)and Research Principal (RP)) and 49922 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 40701 (July 6, 2004) (SR-PCX-2003-51) (Pacific Exchange positions Market Maker (44), Floor Broker (45), and Market Maker acting as a Floor Broker (46)). 17 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48774 (November 12, 2003), 68 FR 65332 (November 19, 2003) (SR-CSE-2003-12). Making the Transition to Form BR NASD expects that the effective date of the proposed rule change will be October 31, 2005. NASD plans to announce the effective date of the proposed rule change, along with a timetable for the transition to the Form BR, in a *Notice to Members* to be published no later than 30 days following Commission approval. NASD has designated October 15, 2005 through October 30, 2005 as a “lock-out” period for the CRD system, during which time NASD would help firms with branch offices in existence as of the close of business on October 14, 2005 to register these offices. During the “lock-out” period, NASD would create a “conversion” Form BR on the CRD system for all branch offices in existence as of the close of business on October 14, 2005. NASD would assign a unique branch CRD number to each of these branches and pre-populate the “conversion” Forms BR with limited information for each of these branches. 18 During this “lock-out” period, the CRD system would not accept any branch office forms or amendments via any of the current forms or Form BR. 18 NASD noted that the conversion process would download the following data in CRD® or the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (IARD SM ), as well as data provided from the NYSE and participating states: Branch Address, CRD Branch Number, NYSE Branch Code Number, NASD/NYSE Supervisor/Person-In-Charge Name and CRD Number, Operational Status, and NYSE/Jurisdiction Registration Status. Starting on October 31, 2005, the new branch office functionality would be available in the CRD system. Beginning on that date, firms with branch offices in existence before the close of business on October 14, 2005 could:
(1)Complete the data fields for each “conversion” Form BR created by NASD during the “lock-out” period; and
(2)file through CRD® the completed Forms BR. In addition, firms would be able to amend Forms U4 to assign each registered person to a registered branch office. Firms could assign registered persons to branches by means of either individual Form U4 filings or an electronic file transfer ( *i.e.* , a “batch” filing) established exclusively for this purpose. Firms with branch offices in existence before the close of business on October 14, 2005 would have until May 1, 2006 to comply with the Form BR and Form U4 filing requirements for those branch offices. Therefore, by May 1, 2006, these firms would have to have:
(1)Completed and filed the “conversion” Form BR for each such branch; and
(2)with respect to the registered persons employed by such branches, amended all applicable Forms U4 to assign these registered persons to the branch office(s) (or other locations) from which they work. Starting on October 31, 2005, firms would have to file a Form BR to register any new branch office opened on or after October 15, 2005. 19 Once a firm has filed a Form BR, the new branch would be established on the CRD system, and CRD® would automatically populate the “Office of Employment Address” of the Form U4 for each person identified in Section 5 (Associated Individuals) of the Form BR. Individuals identified in this section would populate a dynamic “branch roster” of registered persons in CRD®. Thereafter, firms would be required to submit amended Forms U4 to assign additional registered persons to the branch, and CRD® would automatically update the “branch roster” of registered persons in Web CRD. 20 The “branch roster” would be made available to firms. 19 Article IV, Section 8 of the NASD By-Laws requires firms to report the opening of a branch office not later than 30 days after the branch is opened. 20 Article V, Section 2 of the NASD By-Laws requires amendments to the Form U4 to be filed within 30 days after learning of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the amendment. The “Specific Instructions” for completing the Form U4, as amended, address procedures for updating the Form U4 to include all branch office addresses at which the individual is employed. Amendment No. 2 In Amendment No. 2, NASD:
(1)Indicated that it expects that October 31, 2005 will be the effective date of the proposed rule change, and that the *Notice to Members* announcing the effective date (to be published no later than 30 days following Commission approval) will provide the timetable for the transition to the Form BR;
(2)replaced the “Making the Transition to Form BR” subsection of the “Purpose” section in its entirety;
(3)modified the “Conforming Changes to Forms U4 and U5” discussion in the “Purpose” section with respect to
(i)Changes to the “Office of Employment Address” section of the Form U4,
(ii)reporting independent contractor relationships on the Form U4,
(iii)the procedures to be followed if an individual is not located at a registered branch office, and
(iv)the effective date of the proposed rule change;
(4)clarified in footnote 10 that the referenced report concerns registered individuals; and
(5)made other minor edits to the proposal, including technical, non-substantive changes to the proposed Form BR, modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and related Specific Instructions on the Form U4 and modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and related Specific Instructions and other technical, non-substantive changes to the Form U5. III. Comment Summary and NASD Response Letter As noted above, the Commission received 6 comment letters with respect to the proposed rule change. 21 NASD filed a response letter to address concerns raised by the commenters. 22 21 *See supra* note 5. 22 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. Most of the commenters generally supported uniform electronic registration of branch offices through the CRD system. 23 The commenters discussed many of the benefits of Form BR. Three commenters indicated that the Form BR would eliminate duplicative or redundant filings; 24 one of these commenters noted that Form BR would still provide regulators with pertinent information, 25 and another noted that it would promote efficiency. 26 Another commenter also praised the efficiencies that would result from Form BR, including “registration of both state and NASD branch offices through CRD, centralized fee collection and on-line work queues.” 27 Two commenters indicated that the Form BR would improve data accuracy. 28 One of these commenters felt that a single filing would reduce the number of clerical oversights, 29 while the other thought that the cross-checks of filings in the CRD system would serve to improve the accuracy of the data. 30 The latter commenter also stated that Form BR will assist regulators by allowing them to generate reports about branch offices and, since it will link registered persons to branches, will allow regulators to better track complaints to branches. 31 23 One commenter stated that it “strongly supports the efforts of NASD and other working group members to integrate branch office registration into the CRD in order to create efficiencies for member firms,” however, the commenter later stated that it “cannot support the Form BR as it is currently proposed.” *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. Another commenter noted that “[w]e see no viable explanation for how this initiative will result in any enhancement to any objective related to customer protection,” and indicated that “two things are necessary before this initiative becomes one that it can support.” *See* 1st Global Letter, *supra* note 5. 24 *See* ARM Letter, Rhodes Letter and NASAA Letter, *supra* note 5. 25 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 26 *See* NASAA Letter, *supra* note 5. 27 *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. 28 *See* ARM Letter and NASAA Letter, *supra* note 5. 29 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 30 *See* NASAA Letter, *supra* note 5. 31 *Id.* Of the commenters who voiced support for the proposal, two of the commenters supported the proposed rule change without qualification. 32 As discussed below, the other four commenters expressed concerns about the proposed form. 33 32 *See* Rhodes Letter and NASAA Letter, *supra* note 5. 33 *See* ARM Letter, 1st Global Letter, MML Letter and ACLI Letter, *supra* note 5. One of the commenters' main concerns was the potential increase in costs and administrative burden. 34 A commenter stated that “a more reasonable amount of information should be included on the Form BR that would result in less of an administrative burden for broker-dealers.” 35 Another commenter stated that “the complexity of the proposed Form BR is extremely burdensome and solicits information beyond that necessary to register a branch office,” and requested that “more information be made available regarding the workflow and data maintenance that would be required of firms before the Form BR is finalized.” 36 One of the commenters stated that the proposed Form BR is duplicative of Schedule E of Form BD and, “[w]ithout a formal SEC action eliminating Schedule E,” the Form BR, “would exacerbate administrative burdens.” 37 NASD responded to comments regarding the burdensome nature of the proposed Form BR by reiterating the benefits of the Form BR and the enhancements to the CRD system, including making the registration process more efficient and allowing regulators and firms to obtain reports showing branch offices within a firm and the registered individuals in each branch office. 38 34 *See* 1st Global Letter, MML Letter and ACLI Letter, *supra* note 5. 35 *See* 1st Global Letter, *supra* note 5. 36 *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. NASD indicated that this commenter is an insurance-affiliated broker-dealer. *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 37 *See* ACLI Letter, *supra* notes 5 and 9. 38 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. Two of the commenters were concerned about the effect of the adoption of the proposed “branch office” definition 39 on the instant proposal, indicating that the new definition would greatly increase the number of branch offices that had to be registered on Form BR. 40 One of these commenters indicated that NASD's proposed branch office definition would have a “significantly disproportionate impact on broker-dealers affiliated with life insurers.” 41 The same commenter also expressed concern that the NASD proposal “does not evaluate the burdensome economic impact” of the proposed 30-day time frame for amendments to the Form BR, and stated that, “[t]he sheer number of offices and filings that would need updates on a very short time horizon is daunting * * *” 42 NASD responded to comments regarding the proposed branch office definition by stating that “the proposed Form BR is not linked to NASD's proposed rule change regarding the definition of branch office.” 43 However, the Commission notes that, in fact, the Form BR is predicated upon a uniform branch office definition and views the two rule filings to operate in concert. Additionally, the NASD has delayed the effective date of the branch office definition until early 2006 to allow firms a smooth transition to the Form BR and associated filing protocols before making the new definition effective. 44 39 The Commission recently approved the NASD's and the NYSE's proposed definition of “branch office.” *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52403 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104) and 52402 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54788 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2002-34). 40 *See* 1st Global Letter and ACLI Letter, *supra* note 5. One of these commenters also stated that it was “premature” to publish Form BR for comment given the uncertainty surrounding the definition of branch office. *See* ACLI Letter, *supra* note 5. 41 *See* ACLI Letter, *supra* note 5. NASD indicated in its response letter that both of these commenters were concerned about the effect of the proposed Form BR on the insurance industry. The Commission notes that, according to its review, only the ACLI Letter specifically addressed the impact on the insurance industry. 42 *Id.* 43 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. NASD also indicated that it was addressing the impact of the proposed branch office definition in a separate rule filing, SR-NASD-2003-104. As noted above, NASD's proposed branch office definition has been approved by the Commission. *See supra* note 39. 44 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52403 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104). Furthermore, some of the commenters voiced concerns about the specific sections of the form. One of the commenters requested that the fields requiring the branch telephone number and facsimile number be removed because “they are unnecessarily burdensome to enter and maintain.” 45 Another commenter indicated a need for multiple firm billing code fields to allow the entry of more than one billing code per branch, noting that “different supervisors (those running different businesses in a single location) would likely possess different ‘billing codes’,” and that “a scenario could exist wherein a single office being managed by a single individual will have more than one billing code.” 46 The commenter suggested that, if necessary, this change be made as an enhancement after the Form BR is initially implemented so that NASD can maintain its planned rollout schedule. One of the commenters recommended that “supervisor information be limited to one person who would be the primary supervisor * * *,” 47 while another commenter applauded the NASD for allowing for multiple supervisors at a single office location. 48 NASD responded by indicating that it plans to maintain the current implementation schedule but that it would ask the Working Group “to consider modifying the Form BR to permit a single branch office to report multiple billing codes.” 49 45 *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. 46 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 47 *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. This commenter further noted that, once the supervisor's CRD number is entered, the field for the supervisor's name could be populated from the supervisor's Form U4. *Id.* 48 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 49 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. One commenter suggested that Section 3 be eliminated in its entirety “since the information is beyond that needed to register a branch office and because business activities at a branch location, use of DBA names and websites are already subject to regulatory compliance.” 50 Additionally, the commenter recommended that Section 4 be eliminated or changed to apply only to OSJs since “requiring this information for all locations where a registered representative is located will cause an undue burden on firms to provide complete, accurate information and to monitor any type of change to such operations.” 51 NASD responded to these comments by indicating that it believes that the information being elicited by these questions has significant regulatory value and that the questions should be retained. 52 50 *See* MML Letter, *supra* note 5. 51 *Id.* 52 Telephone conversation between Shirley Weiss, Associate General Counsel, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division, Commission, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on September 22, 2005. One commenter firmly disagreed with the requirement that the Form BR be signed, and noted that “neither the current NYSE Branch Office Application nor the amendment of Schedule E of Form BD require signature. * * *” 53 The commenter stated that “[r]equiring a signature on Form BR is taking a step backwards and is tantamount to suggesting that the person submitting the filing is not accountable for the accuracy of the data contained in that filing.” 54 53 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 54 *Id.* NASD responded that the Working Group “believes that the integrity of the data to be reported on the proposed Form BR requires an attestation that the statements are ‘current, true and complete.’ ” 55 NASD further indicated that the signature requirement on Form BR is consistent with the signature requirements on the Forms U4 and U5. 56 55 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 56 *Id.* One commenter discussed the placement of a question regarding an individual's status as an independent contractor, which was added to the Form U4 and removed from the originally proposed Form BR in response to comments received in response to NASD's Notice to Members 04-55 published in August 2004. 57 The commenter urged that “the independent contractor question be placed in a section of Form U4 that does not require a registered representative signature so as to avoid triggering a [NASD] Rule 3080 notification,” 58 and that NASD should “set a ‘no’ default to the response to that question” so that, when the independent contractor question is added to the Form U4, every registered person will not immediately have an incomplete Form U4. 59 57 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. 58 *Id.* NASD notes that “NASD Rule 3080 requires certain disclosures regarding the predispute arbitration clause contained in the Form U4 to be made whenever an associated person is asked to sign a new or amended Form U4.” *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 59 *See* ARM Letter, *supra* note 5. NASD responded by confirming that the independent contractor question will be located in a section of the Form U4 that does not require a registered person's signature if amended. 60 With regard to the request for a “no” default response to the independent contractor question, NASD indicated that it would not set a default response but that it would allow member firms to provide the answers to the independent contractor question as part of a “batch” data file that firms will be able to submit to assign registered persons to established branch offices. 61 60 *See* NASD Response Letter, *supra* note 6. 61 *Id.* IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2 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-2005-030 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-2005-030. 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 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 File Number SR-NASD-2005-030 and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005. V. Discussion and Commission's Findings After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the comment letters, and NASD's responses to the comment letters, 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. 62 The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b) of the Act, 63 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 15A(b)(6), 64 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 62 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 63 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b). 64 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). The Commission supports NASD, the NYSE, and state securities regulators' joint regulatory effort to develop a uniform branch office registration form that will enable firms to register branch offices electronically with NASD, the NYSE, other SROs and states. The Commission believes that utilizing a single form, Form BR, will make the branch office registration process more efficient by eliminating duplicative forms and questions and reconciling inconsistencies among existing forms, while retaining or adding questions that elicit information that will be of regulatory value to SROs and states, as well as the Commission. The conforming and technical changes to the Form U4 and the Form U5 will also ensure that the information elicited by such forms is of regulatory value to SROs and states. In this regard, the Commission believes that, by significantly streamlining the branch office registration process, such regulatory coordination and cooperation should result in an effective and efficient regulation that will serve the entire broker-dealer community. The Commission also supports NASD's planned enhancements to the CRD system, which will coincide with the implementation of the Form BR, that will enable registered persons to submit via the Form U4 the name of the branch office(s) with which they are associated. From this information, firms and regulators will be able to generate reports showing, for example, the individuals who are currently associated with a branch, or were associated with a branch during a specific time period. The Commission believes that this is an important improvement to the CRD® database and will allow regulators to gather information and deploy examination resources more efficiently. The enhancements to the CRD system also will serve to reconcile inconsistencies in the CRD® database, thereby improving data integrity, via cross-checks between the Form BR and the corresponding sections of the Form U4. Finally, the Commission believes it is reasonable for NASD to implement the proposed Form BR pursuant to the schedule set forth by NASD. The creation of “conversion” Forms BR for branch offices already in existence before the launch of the branch office functionality in CRD® should allow for a smooth transition to the new branch office registration system. In addition, the transition will be facilitated by NASD's allowing firms to make “batch” filings to assign registered persons to branch offices, thereby amending multiple registered persons' Forms U4 with one filing. Furthermore, the six-month period for firms to complete the Forms BR for such branch offices and amend the Form U4 for each registered person should give firms ample time to comply with their filing requirements. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2 The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published for comment in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 65 Amendment No. 2 clarified:
(1)The effective date of the proposed rule change and the process for transitioning to Form BR;
(2)the description of conforming changes to be made to Forms U4 and U5; and
(3)the description of the reports that will be able to be generated in the CRD system. Amendment No. 2 also included other minor edits, including technical, non-substantive changes to the proposed Form BR, modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and related Specific Instructions on the Form U4, and modifications to Sections 1 and 6 and related Specific Instructions and other technical, non-substantive changes to the Form U5. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 2 provides for a clearer understanding of the implementation schedule of the proposed Form BR, the proposed changes to Forms U4 and U5, and the new functionality in the CRD system and notes that the technical and clarifying changes made to the Form BR and Forms U4 and U5 raise no new issues of regulatory concern. 65 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Accordingly, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of Amendment No. 2 is appropriate. VI. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, and, in particular, Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. 66 66 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 67 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-030), as amended by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved and that Amendment No. 2 thereto is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 67 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 68 68 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5534 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52550; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Add Rules Regarding Time Tracking Requirements of Specialists and Specialist Organizations to Its Minor Rule Violation Plan October 3, 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 September 22, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III 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. 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 NYSE Rule 476A in order to include NYSE Rule 103.12, which relates to time tracking requirements of specialists and specialist organizations, in its Minor Rule Violation Plan. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, 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 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On August 12, 2005, the Exchange filed with the Commission a proposed rule change relating to NYSE Rule 103.12, 3 which requires specialists and specialist organizations to record and report the actual time individuals spend working as a specialist or clerk while on the trading floor of the Exchange. NYSE Rule 103.12 requires specialists and specialist member organizations to make and keep, in the regular course of business, records of the times that each of the member organization's specialists and clerks work in such capacities on the floor. The specialists and specialist member organizations must be able to provide such records to the Exchange within the time frame and in a format determined by the Exchange. In addition, NYSE Rule 103.12 requires specialists and clerks to log in to the Exchange's IDTrack system and register their presence with respect to specialty stocks in which they are working. The IDTrack system provides reports and information pertaining to specialist and clerk activity to the Exchange's Division of Market Surveillance and to specialist firms. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52251 (August 12, 2005), 70 FR 48790 (August 19, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-47). NYSE Rule 103.12 allows the Exchange to more accurately track the identity of specialists and their clerks and the times when each specialist and clerk act in such capacities while on the floor. This proposed rule change seeks to add NYSE Rule 103.12 to NYSE Rule 476A's Supplementary Material, List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines Applicable Thereto Pursuant to Rule 476A, as an enforcement tool. NYSE Rule 476A provides that the Exchange may impose a fine, not to exceed $5,000, on any member, member organization, allied member, approved person, or registered or non-registered employee of a member or member organization for a minor violation of certain specified Exchange rules. NYSE Rule 476A's procedures for the imposition of fines are designed to provide meaningful sanctions for certain rule violations when the initiation of a formal disciplinary procedure under NYSE Rule 476 would be more costly and time consuming than would be warranted given the minor nature of the violation or when the violation calls for a stronger response than an admonition letter. The Exchange believes that specialists and their clerks may at times fail to adhere to the record keeping requirements of NYSE Rule 103.12 in a manner that may be appropriate to be addressed with formal discipline (as provided under NYSE Rule 476) or informal discipline (such as a fine as provided under NYSE Rule 476A). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 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 would 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 No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 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-2005-64 on the subject line. 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 SR-NYSE-2005-64. 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NYSE-2005-64 and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5531 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52543; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (“Form BR”) September 30, 2005. I. Introduction On April 13, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) 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 proposal to adopt the Uniform Branch Office Registration Form 3 (“Form BR”). 4 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 2005. 5 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 At the request of the NYSE, the Commission staff corrected the title of the Form BR, which was inadvertently shown in the initial filing as “Uniform Branch Office Form.” Telephone conversation between Stephen Kasprzak, Senior Special Counsel, NYSE and Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, on September 28, 2005. 4 The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) also filed a proposed rule change proposing to establish the Form BR, which is substantially similar to the Exchange's proposal. The Commission is simultaneously approving NASD's proposed rule change. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52544 (September 30, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-030) (“NASD Release”). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51923 (June 24, 2005), 70 FR 38229 (“Notice”). 6 The Commission notes that it received six comment letters on the NASD's proposed rule change and the NASD addressed the comments. *See* letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General Counsel, NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division, Commission, dated August 17, 2005 (“NASD Response Letter”). *See* NASD Release, *supra* note 4, for a summary of the comments and the NASD Response Letter. II. Description of Proposed Rule Change The NYSE proposes to adopt Form BR, developed by a working group composed of representatives from the Exchange, NASD, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) and various states. The proposed Form BR would enable Exchange members and member organizations (“NYSE Membership”) to submit branch office application information to the Exchange, NASD, other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), and states, as applicable, by electronically filing a single Form BR through the Central Registration Depository (“CRD®” or “CRD system”). 7 The NYSE Membership would be able to use the proposed Form BR to submit information that is currently furnished through the NYSE Branch Office Application form, Schedule E of the Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (“Form BD”), 8 and certain state branch office forms. 9 7 As discussed in the Notice, some significant features of the Form BR would include a section that solicits information exclusively from the NYSE Membership. *See* Notice, *supra* note 5. 8 The Division, in response to a request from NASD, has granted no-action relief indicating that it will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under Rules 15b1-1, 15b3-1, 15Ba2-2, and 15Ca2-1 under the Act for broker-dealers that file the Form BR, and do not complete Schedule E, or file amendments to Schedule E, of the Form BD, as of the date on which the transition to the Form BR begins and the CRD® no longer accepts Schedule E filings, which is currently anticipated to be October 15, 2005. *See* letter from Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Division, Commission, to Patrice M. Gliniecki, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, NASD, dated September 30, 2005. 9 The NYSE notes that states that currently require branch office registration or reporting have indicated that they would use the proposed Form BR for those purposes. Seven states that require branch office registration, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Texas, Vermont and West Virginia, have indicated that they plan to use the Form BR. Other jurisdictions that currently require “notice filings” for branch openings and closings, including Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin, have indicated that they also expect to use the Form BR. Telephone conversation between John Veator, Director, Regulatory User Liaison, NASD, Elizabeth Badawy, Accountant, Division, Commission and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on September 20, 2005. The Form BR is one component of a broader project to provide uniform branch office definitions and registration procedures. 10 Enhancements to the CRD system would provide what amounts to a relational “link” between the Form BR and the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U4”). 11 10 The Commission recently approved the NYSE's and the NASD's proposed definition of “branch office.” *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52402 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54788 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2002-34) and 52403 (September 9, 2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104). 11 For example, while firms would continue to report changes to an individual registered person's branch office assignment by filing an amended Form U4, firms would also be able to report a new office of employment address for multiple registered persons assigned to a particular branch office that has moved to a new location by filing an amended Form BR (rather than filing multiple Form U4 amendments for the registered persons affected). Previously, branch application information was submitted through the Exchange's Electronic Filing Platform (“EFP”). 12 Once the proposed new Form BR becomes effective, branch office applications and amendments would no longer be accepted or processed through the EFP. Form BR information submitted through CRD® would be automatically transmitted to the NYSE branch office system, from which the Exchange would review branch applications per its current protocol. The NYSE branch office system would then transmit approval/rejection determinations directly to CRD®, where the NYSE Membership could view them. 12 The EFP is an extranet built by the NYSE to support authenticated, encrypted, two-way communications between the NYSE and its membership. It is currently being used for applications such as branch office approvals and short interest reporting. III. Discussion and Commission's Findings After careful consideration of the 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 national securities exchange. 13 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 15 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 13 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission supports the NYSE, NASD, and state securities regulators' joint regulatory effort to develop a uniform branch office registration form that will enable firms to register branch offices electronically with the NYSE, NASD, other SROs, and states. The Commission believes that utilizing a single form, Form BR, will make the branch office registration process more efficient by eliminating duplicative forms and questions and reconciling inconsistencies among existing forms, while retaining or adding questions that elicit information that will be of regulatory value to SROs and states, as well as the Commission. In this regard, the Commission believes that, by significantly streamlining the branch office registration process, such regulatory coordination and cooperation should result in an effective and efficient regulation that will serve the entire broker-dealer community. The Commission also supports the planned enhancements to the CRD system, which will coincide with the implementation of the Form BR, that will enable registered persons to submit via the Form U4 the name of the branch office(s) with which they are associated. From this information, firms and regulators will be able to generate reports showing, for example, the individuals who are currently associated with a branch, or were associated with a branch during a specific time period. The Commission believes that this is an important improvement to the CRD® database and will allow regulators to gather information and deploy examination resources more efficiently. The enhancements to the CRD system also will serve to reconcile inconsistencies in the CRD® database, thereby improving data integrity, via cross-checks between the Form BR and the corresponding sections of the Form U4. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, 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, and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 16 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 17 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2005-13) is hereby approved. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5535 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52542; File No. SR-PCX-2005-85] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to Exposure of Orders in the PCX Plus Crossing Mechanism September 30, 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 19, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the PCX. The PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on September 20, 2005 and withdrew Amendment No. 1 on September 22, 2005. The PCX filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on September 23, 2005. 3 The PCX filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on September 27, 2005. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 2, the PCX clarified its statement of the purpose of the proposed rule change, corrected certain terminology that was inadvertently used in the rule text set forth in the original proposal, and corrected typographical errors in the text of the current rule. 4 In Amendment No. 3, the PCX corrected Exhibit 4 to Amendment No. 2. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The PCX is proposing to decrease the exposure period in its Crossing Mechanism from 30 seconds to 10 seconds. Minor changes are also proposed to correct typographical errors in existing rule text. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the PCX's Web site ( *http://www.pacificex.com* ), at the PCX'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 PCX 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. The PCX 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 PCX rules provide that a PCX Broker may not facilitate orders or cross two orders, using the Crossing Mechanism of the PCX Plus System (“PCX Plus” or “System”), unless it enters into the System the terms of each order that is to be included as part of a Cross Order, 5 pursuant to PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(A). Both facilitation crosses and non-facilitation crosses are executed in the same manner in PCX Plus. Upon entry into PCX Plus, the System will evaluate the terms of the Cross Order and, after accepting the Cross Order, will execute the cross in accordance with PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B). Among other conditions, Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B) requires a 30-second exposure period in which OTP Holders and OTP Firms may enter orders to trade against the side of the Cross Order that has been designated as the Exposed Order. 6 It is this portion of the Crossing Mechanism rule that the PCX proposes to change. 5 *See* PCX Rule 6.76(c)(1)(A), which defines Cross Order for the purposes of PCX Rule 6.76(c) as “two orders with instructions to match the identified buy-side with the identified sell-side at a specified price (the “Cross Price”).” 6 *See* PCX Rule 6.76(c)(1)(D), which defines “Exposed Order” as follows: “the buy or sell side of a Cross Order that has been designated by a PCX Broker as the side to be exposed to the market and that is eligible for execution against all trading interest. Public Customer orders will always be deemed to be the Exposed Order in a Cross Order. In the case of a Cross Order involving a non-customer on both the buy side and sell side, the PCX Broker must designate one side of the Cross Order as the Exposed Order.” The Exchange proposes to shorten the duration of the exposure period contained in the rules governing the Crossing Mechanism, as set forth in PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B)(i)(a) and PCX Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B)(ii)(b), 7 from 30 seconds to 10 seconds. This shortened exposure period is fully consistent with the electronic nature of the System. Market participants on the PCX have implemented systems that monitor any updates to the PCX market including any changes resulting from orders being entered into the Crossing Mechanism and can automatically respond based upon pre-set parameters. In this electronic environment, it is not necessary to provide an exposure time sufficiently long to permit a person to manually respond to an updated market in order to provide the opportunity for crowd interaction. Thus, an exposure period of 10 seconds will permit exposure of orders on the PCX in a manner consistent with the Exchange's electronic market. 7 PCX Rules 6.76(c)(2)(B)(i) and 6.76(c)(2)(B)(ii) govern the execution of Cross Orders when the Cross Price is between the Best Bid and Offer (“BBO”) and when it is at the BBO, respectively. By reducing the exposure period from 30 seconds to 10 seconds the PCX believes that OTP Holders and OTP Firms will be able to provide liquidity to their customers' orders on a timelier basis, thus providing investors with more speedy executions. Timely and accurate executions are consistent with the principles under which PCX Plus was developed. The PCX also proposes to change a phrase in the text in Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B)(i)(b) and Rule 6.76(c)(2)(B)(ii)(b) from “OTP Holder or OTP Firm” to “OTP Holders and OTP Firms”. It has always been the intent of the PCX to have the pluralized version of the terms as part of the rules. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 8 that an exchange have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. In particular, the proposed rule change will provide investors with more timely execution of their options orders, while ensuring that there is an adequate exposure of all crossing orders in the PCX marketplace. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the PCX consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-2005-85 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-2005-85. 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 PCX. 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-2005-85 and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5525 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration
(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, New Executive Building, Room 10235, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6974. (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400. I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. *Application for Mother's or Father's Insurance Benefits—20 CFR 404.339-404.342, 20 CFR 404.601-404.603—0960-0003.* SSA collects the information on the SSA-5-F6 to entitle an individual to his/her mother's and father's insurance benefits. The respondents are individuals who apply for entitlement to their mothers' or fathers' benefits. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 50,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 12,500 hours. 2. Missing and Discrepant Wage Reports Letter and Questionnaire—26 CFR 31.6051-2—0960-0432. Each year employers report the wage amounts they paid their employees to IRS for tax purposes, and, separately, to SSA for retirement and disability coverage purposes. These amounts should be the same, however, each year many employer wage reports received by SSA are less than those reported to IRS. Through Forms SSA-L93, 95, and 97, SSA attempts to reconcile the amounts to ensure employees receive full credit. The respondents are employers who reported less wage amounts to SSA than they did to IRS. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 359,999. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 180,000 hours. 3. *Information Collection Requirements for Title VIII of the Social Security Act—20 CFR 408.202(d), 408.210, 408.230(a), 408.232(a), 408.320, 408.305, 408.310, 408.315, 408.340, 408.345, 408.351(d) and (f), 408.355(a), 408.360(a), 408.404(c), 408.410, 408.412, 408.420(a) and (b), 408.430, 408.432, 408.435(a) and (b), 408.437(b),
(c)and (d)—0960-0658.* Section 251 of the “Foster Care Independence Act of 1999” added Title VIII to the Social Security Act (Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans). Title VIII allows, under certain circumstances, the payment of a monthly benefit by the Commissioner of Social Security to a qualified World War II veteran who resides outside the United States. The accompanying regulations set out the requirements an individual must meet in order to qualify for and become entitled to Special Veterans Benefits (SVB). The respondents are individuals who are applying for benefits under Title VIII of the Social Security Act. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 762. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 381 hours. 4. *Application for Supplemental Security Income—20 CFR 416.305-416.335—0960-0444.* The information collected on the SSA-8001-BK is needed and used to determine eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the amount of SSI benefits payable to the applicant. Respondents are applicants for SSI benefits. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Form 34,643 1 19 10,970 Electronic Form (MSSICS) 1,120,117 1 16 298,698 Total Annual Burden: 1,154,760 309,668 5. *Marital Relationship Questionnaire—20 CFR 416.1826—0960-0460.* Form SSA-4178 provides a nationally uniform vehicle for collection of information to determine for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)purposes whether unrelated individuals of the opposite sex who live together are holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. The information is necessary to determine whether correct payment is being made to SSI couples and individuals. The respondents are applicants for, and recipients of, SSI benefits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 5,100. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 425 hours. 6. *Public Information Campaign—0960-0544.* SSA sends public information materials ( *e.g.:* public service announcements, news releases, educational tapes) to public broadcasting systems so these media sources can inform the general public about the Agency's various programs and activities. To track media usage of these materials, SSA conducts the Public Information Campaign, a bi-annual solicitation of feedback from the target public media sources via business reply cards. The respondents are public broadcasting systems who are sent information about various SSA programs to disseminate to the public. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 8,000. *Frequency of Response:* 2. *Average Burden Per Response:* 1 minute. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 267 hours. 7. *Application for a Social Security Card—20 CFR 422.103-.110—0960-0066.* Forms SS-5 (used in the United States) and SS-5-FS (used outside the United States) are used to apply for original and replacement Social Security cards. Changes are being made to these forms to reflect new statutory limits on the number of allowable replacement cards. The respondents are requestors of new or replacement Social Security cards. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 13,600,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 9 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 2,040,000 hours. 8. *Private Printing and Modification of Prescribed Applications and Other Forms—20 CFR 422.527—0960-0663.* This regulation mandates that non-government persons or organizations who wish to reproduce, duplicate, or privately print any application or other form owned by SSA must receive written authorization from the Agency to do so. Moreover, these persons or organizations may not charge the public a fee for any SSA applications, forms, or publications unless authorized by SSA under the circumstances described in these regulations. The respondents are private persons or groups who wish to reproduce, duplicate, privately print, or charge a fee for an SSA application, form, or publication. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 9. *Frequency of Response:* 36. *Average Burden Per Response:* 8 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 43 hours. II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. *Credit Card Payment Acknowledgement Form—0960-0648.* SSA will use the information collected on Form SSA-1414 to process payments from former employees and vendors who have outstanding debts owed to the agency. This form has been developed as a convenient method for respondents to satisfy such debts. The respondents are former employees and vendors who have debts still owed to the agency. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 500. *Frequency of Response:* 12. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 500 hours. Dated: October 3, 2005. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. 05-20158 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
CFR
- Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.§ 20.1402
- Specific exemptions.§ 72.7
- Material balance, inventory, and records requirements for stored materials.§ 72.72
- Maintenance of records, making of reports.§ 50.71
- Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding.§ 2.390
- Use of unsealed byproduct material for uptake, dilution, and excretion studies for which a written directive is not required.§ 35.100
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Information returns on Form W-3 and Social Security Administration copies of Forms W-2.§ 31.6051-2
- How do you qualify for SVB?§ 408.202
- Showing that you are not married when you apply for SSI.§ 416.1826
- Social security numbers.§ 422.103
- Private printing and modification of prescribed applications, forms, and other publications.§ 422.527
11 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 50
- 10 CFR 51
- 10 CFR 72
- 10 CFR 20
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 15 USC 78
- 17 CFR 240.17
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 20 CFR 404.339-404
- 20 CFR 404.601-404
- 20 CFR 416.305-416
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of availability
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 72
Cites 27 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources