Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-10-28 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Notices

Notices. Notice of availability

13,742 words·~62 min read·/register/2005/10/28/05-21492·

A 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 No. 030-05233] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for the Conopco, Inc., D.B.A. Unilever Research and Development (Unilever), Facility in Edgewater, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone
(610)337-5040, fax
(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *exu@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering issuing a license amendment to Conopco, Inc., d.b.a. Unilever Research and Development (Unilever), for Materials License No. 29-00304-02, to authorize release of its facility in Edgewater, New Jersey, for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this action 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 action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Edgewater, New Jersey, facility for unrestricted use. Unilever was authorized by NRC from 1956 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On May 23, 2005, Unilever requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. Unilever has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Unilever. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to terminate the license and release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Unilever's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action 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, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license 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: Environmental Assessment Related to an Amendment of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Materials License No. 29-00304-02, issued to Conopco, Inc. [ML052930082] and the Final Status Survey Report, Unilever Research and Development—Edgewater (URDE), Edgewater, New Jersey, NRC License No. 29-00304-02, May 2005 [ADAMS Accession Nos. ML051780048, ML051780060, ML051780061, ML051780068, ML051780093, ML051780095, ML051780096, ML051780097, ML051780098, ML051780100, ML051780102, ML051780103, ML051780105]. 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
(800)397-4209 or
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html.* Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 20th day of October, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-5978 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52633; File No. SR-Amex-2005-093] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Rule 891 Relating to Transfer Agents October 18, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on September 19, 2005, American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) 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 Amex. Amex has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, 2 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 parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate Amex's Rule 891 relating to obsolete transfer agent requirements. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 3 3 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by the Amex.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change On March 17, 2000, Amex amended its Company Guide to eliminate the qualification of transfer agents, registrars, and bond trustees. 4 Amex believed that the Commission's rules governing transfer agents made Amex's rules unnecessary or inappropriate. However, at that time Amex did not eliminate transfer agent requirements in its rules. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42539 (March 17, 2000); 65 FR 15672 (March 23, 2000); [File No. SR-Amex-99-39]. The purpose of this filing is to conform Amex's rules to the changes made to the Company Guide. Rule 891 of Amex's rules currently lists the requirements to qualify as a transfer agent for securities listed on Amex, which includes among other things a requirement to maintain office facilities that are located south of Chambers Street in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, that allow the issuer to receive and redeliver securities. In light of the amendments to the Company Guide, Amex has determined that Rule 891 is obsolete and no longer in use and proposes to eliminate that Rule 891. Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires the Amex rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in 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. Amex believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act 5 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder because it makes consistent the requirements of the Company Guide with the requirements in Amex rules and further clarifies the compliance obligations of transfer agents acting for issuers listed on Amex. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5).
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. Amex will notify the Commission of any written comments received by Amex. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 8 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 such 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. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 8 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-Amex-2005-093 *on the subject line.* Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-093. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference 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 Amex and on Amex's Web site, *http://www.amex.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-Amex-2005-093 and should be submitted on or before November 18, 2005. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5970 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52649; File No. SR-Amex-2005-063] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Elimination of Position and Exercise Limits on NDX Options October 21, 2005. I. Introduction On June 9, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 proposed rule change to eliminate position and exercise limits for options on the Nasdaq 100 Index (“NDX”). The Commission published the proposed rule change for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 26, 2005. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52312 (August 22, 2005), 70 FR 50431 (“Notice”). II. Description of the Proposal The Amex proposes to amend its rules to eliminate position and exercise limits for options on the NDX. In connection with this change, options on the NDX would be subject to specific reporting requirements and additional margin provisions imposed by the Amex with respect to options on the Major Market Index (“XMI”) and the Institutional Index (“XII”), the two broad-based index options that, under the Exchange's current rules, are not subject to position and exercise limits. 4 4 According to the Amex, options on the XII are no longer listed and traded on the Exchange. The Exchange noted that in approving the elimination of position limits for XMI and XII options, the Commission considered the enormous capitalization of each of these indexes and the deep and liquid markets for the securities underlying each index significantly reduced concerns of market manipulation or disruption in the underlying markets. 5 The Amex noted that the market capitalization of NDX, as of June 1, 2005, was $1.86 trillion and the average daily trading volume (“ADTV”), in the aggregate, for the component securities of the NDX, for the period from January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005 was 425.8 million shares. For the same period, the ADTV for options on the NDX was 45,820 contracts. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46393 (August 21, 2002), 67 FR 55289 (August 28, 2002) (order granting permanent approval to the elimination of position and exercise limits on the Major Market index and the Institutional Index) (“XMI/XII Permanent Approval Order”). The Exchange also stated that in the XMI/XII Permanent Approval Order, the Commission noted that the financial requirements imposed by both the Exchange and the Commission serve to address any concerns that an Exchange member or its customer(s) may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in XMI/XII options. The Amex noted that these same financial requirements would apply equally to NDX options. The Exchange further noted that it has the authority to impose additional margin upon accounts maintaining underhedged positions, and is further able to monitor accounts to determine when such action is warranted. As noted in the Exchange's rules, the clearing firm carrying such an account would be subject to capital charges under Rule 15c3-1 under the Act 6 to the extent of any resulting margin deficiency. 7 6 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. 7 *See* Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 904C. Clarified as per telephone conversation between Ira Brandriss, Special Counsel, and Theodore Venuti, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Jeffery P. Burns, Associate General Counsel, Amex, on August 16, 2005. The Amex indicated that the Commission, in the XMI/XII Permanent Approval Order, relied substantially on the Exchange's ability to provide surveillance and reporting safeguards to detect and deter trading abuses arising from the elimination of position and exercise limits on XMI and XII options. The Exchange represents that it monitors the trading in NDX options in the same manner as trading in XMI options and that the current Amex surveillance procedures are adequate to continue monitoring NDX options. In addition, the Exchange intends to impose a reporting requirement on Amex members (other than Amex specialists and registered options traders) or member organizations who trade NDX options. This reporting requirement, which is currently imposed on members who trade XMI options, would require members or member organizations who maintain in excess of 100,000 NDX option contracts on the same side of the market, for their own accounts or for the account of customers, to report information as to whether the positions are hedged and provide documentation as to how such contracts are hedged, in a manner and form required by the Exchange's Regulation Department. The Exchange also would be permitted to specify other reporting requirements, as well as the limit at which the reporting requirement may be triggered. 8 8 Pursuant to Amex Rule 906, as referenced in Amex Rule 906C(a). Telephone conversation between Ira Brandriss, Special Counsel, and Theodore Venuti, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Jeffery P. Burns, Associate General Counsel, Amex, on August 18, 2005. Finally, the Amex proposes to amend Exchange rules relating to the trading of FLEX broad-based index options to eliminate position and exercise limits on FLEX NDX options, and to adopt for NDX FLEX options the same 100,000 contract reporting requirement and additional margin provisions that apply for XMI FLEX options. The Exchange believes that eliminating position and exercise limits for NDX options and FLEX options is consistent with Amex rules relating to similar broad-based indexes and would also allow Amex members and their customers greater hedging and investment opportunities. III. Discussion After careful review, 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. 9 The Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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. 10 9 In approving this rule proposal, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Since the inception of standardized options trading, the options exchanges have had rules imposing limits on the aggregate number of options contracts that a member or customer could hold or exercise. These rules are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options position. The Commission notes that it continues to believe that the fundamental purposes of position and exercise limits remain valid. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that experience with the trading of index options as well as enhanced reporting requirements and the Exchange's surveillance capabilities have made it possible to approve the elimination of position and exercise limits on certain broad-based index options. Thus, in 2002, the Commission approved an Amex proposal to eliminate permanently position and exercise limits for options on the XMI and XII. 11 11 *See* XMI/XII Permanent Approval Order, *supra* note 5. The Commission believes that the considerations upon which it relied in approving the elimination of position and exercise limits for XMI and XII options equally apply with respect to options on the NDX. As noted by the Amex, the market capitalization of the NDX as of the date of filing of the proposal was $1.86 trillion. The ADTV for the period from January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005 for all underlying components of the index was 425.8 million shares. The Commission believes that the enormous market capitalization of the NDX and the deep, liquid market for the underlying component securities significantly reduce concerns regarding market manipulation or disruption in the underlying market. Removing position and exercise limits for NDX options may also bring additional depth and liquidity, in terms of both volume and open interest, to NDX options without significantly increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities. In addition, the Commission believes that financial requirements imposed by both the Exchange and the Commission adequately address concerns that an Amex member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in NDX options. Current risk-based haircut and margin methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a member must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer. 12 Under the proposal, the Amex also would have the authority under its rules to impose a higher margin requirement upon an account maintaining an under-hedged position when it determines a higher requirement is warranted. As noted in the Amex rules, the clearing firm carrying the account would be subject to capital charges under Rule 15c3-1 under the Act to the extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41011 (February 1, 1999), 64 FR 6405 (February 9, 1999) (notice of filing and order granting accelerated approval to proposed rule change implementing pilot program to eliminated position and exercise limits for XMI and XII options) (“XMI/XII Pilot Approval Order”). Finally, in approving the elimination of position and exercise limits for options on the XMI and XII, the Commission took note of the enhanced surveillance and reporting safeguards that the Amex had adopted to allow it to detect and deter trading abuses that might arise as a result. 13 The Amex represents that it monitors trading in NDX options in the same manner as trading in XMI options. These safeguards, including the 100,000-contract reporting requirement described above, would allow the Amex to monitor large positions in order to identify instances of potential risk and to assess and respond to any market concerns at an early stage. In this regard, the Commission expects the Amex to take prompt action, including timely communication with the Commission and other marketplace self-regulatory organizations responsible for oversight of trading in component stocks, should any unanticipated adverse market effects develop. Moreover, as previously noted, the Exchange has the flexibility to specify other reporting requirements, as well as to vary the limit at which the reporting requirements may be triggered. 13 *See* , in particular, XMI/XII Pilot Approval Order, *supra* note 12. The Commission further notes that in eliminating position and exercise limits for FLEX NDX options, the Amex is adopting the same additional rules for these options as for FLEX XMI options. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-063) be, and it hereby is, approved. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5974 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52650; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-41] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Elimination of Position and Exercise Limits on NDX Options October 21, 2005. I. Introduction On May 23, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” 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 proposed rule change to amend its rules to eliminate position and exercise limits for options on the Nasdaq 100 Index (“NDX”). The Commission published the proposed rule change for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 26, 2005. 3 On October 5, 2005, the CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52313 (August 22, 2005), 70 FR 50433 (“Notice”). 4 In Amendment No. 1, the CBOE made a technical revision to a table in the rule text of the proposed rule change to reflect that the NDX is the Nasdaq 100 Index (Full Value). This technical amendment did not require notice and comment, as it did not affect the substance of the rule filing. II. Description of the Proposal The CBOE proposes to amend its rules to eliminate position and exercise limits for options on the NDX, a broad-based security index. In connection with this change, options on the NDX would be subject to specific reporting requirements and additional margin provisions imposed by the CBOE with respect to options on the S&P 500 Index (“SPX”), the S&P 100 Index (“OEX”), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJX”), the three broad-based index options that, under the Exchange's current rules, are not subject to position and exercise limits. The Exchange noted that in approving the elimination of position limits for SPX, OEX, and DJX options, the Commission considered the enormous capitalization of each of these indexes and the deep and liquid markets for the securities underlying each index significantly reduced concerns of market manipulation or disruption in the underlying markets. 5 The CBOE noted that the market capitalization of NDX, as of the date of filing of the proposed rule change, was $1.84 trillion and the average daily trading volume (“ADTV”), in the aggregate, for the component securities of the NDX, for the period three months prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, was 420 million shares. For the same period, the ADTV for options on the NDX was 44,008 contracts. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44994 (October 26, 2001), 66 FR 55722 (November 2, 2001) (order granting permanent approval to the elimination of position and exercise limits on the SPX, OEX, and DJX) (“SPX/OEX/DJX Permanent Approval Order”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22, 1999), 64 FR 4911 (February 1, 1999) (order approving the original pilot program) (“SPX/OEX/DJX Pilot Approval Order”). The Exchange also stated that in the SPX/OEX/DJX Permanent Approval Order, the Commission noted that the financial requirements imposed by both the Exchange and the Commission serve to address any concerns that an Exchange member or its customer(s) may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in SPX/OEX/DJX options. The CBOE noted that these same financial requirements would apply equally to NDX options. The Exchange further noted that it has the authority to impose additional margin upon accounts maintaining underhedged positions, and is further able to monitor accounts to determine when such action is warranted. As noted in the Exchange's rules, the clearing firm carrying such an account would be subject to capital charges under Rule 15c3-1 under the Act 6 to the extent of any resulting margin deficiency. 7 6 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. 7 *See* Interpretation and Policy .04 to CBOE Rule 24.4. Clarified as per telephone conversation between Ira Brandriss, Special Counsel, and Theodore Venuti, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and James M. Flynn, Attorney II, Legal Division, CBOE, on August 12, 2005. The CBOE indicated that the Commission, in the SPX/OEX/DJX Permanent Approval Order, relied substantially on the Exchange's ability to provide surveillance and reporting safeguards to detect and deter trading abuses arising from the elimination of position and exercise limits on SPX, OEX, and DJX options. The Exchange represents that it monitors the trading in NDX options in the same manner as trading in SPX, OEX, and DJX options and that the current CBOE surveillance procedures are adequate to continue monitoring NDX options. In addition, the Exchange intends to impose a reporting requirement on CBOE members (other than CBOE market-makers) or member organizations who trade NDX options. This reporting requirement, which is currently imposed on members who trade SPX and OEX options, would require members or member organizations who maintain in excess of 100,000 NDX option contracts on the same side of the market, for their own accounts or for the account of customers, to report information as to whether the positions are hedged and provide documentation as to how such contracts are hedged, in a manner and form required by the Exchange's Department of Market Regulation. The Exchange also would be permitted to specify other reporting requirements, as well as the limit at which the reporting requirement may be triggered. 8 8 *See* Interpretation and Policy .03 to CBOE Rule 24.4. Finally, the CBOE proposes to amend Exchange rules relating to the trading of FLEX broad-based index options to eliminate position and exercise limits on FLEX NDX options, and to adopt for NDX FLEX options the same 100,000 contract reporting requirement and additional margin provisions that apply for SPX and OEX FLEX options. The Exchange believes that eliminating position and exercise limits for NDX options and FLEX options is consistent with CBOE rules relating to similar broad-based indexes and would also allow CBOE members and their customers greater hedging and investment opportunities. III. Discussion After careful review, 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. 9 In particular, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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. 10 9 In approving this rule proposal, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Since the inception of standardized options trading, the options exchanges have had rules imposing limits on the aggregate number of options contracts that a member or customer could hold or exercise. These rules are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options position. The Commission notes that it continues to believe that the fundamental purposes of position and exercise limits remain valid. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that experience with the trading of index options as well as enhanced reporting requirements and the Exchange's surveillance capabilities have made it possible to approve the elimination of position and exercise limits on certain broad-based index options. Thus, in 2001, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to eliminate permanently position and exercise limits for options on the SPX, OEX, and DJX. 11 11 *See* SPX/OEX/DJX Permanent Approval Order, *supra* note 5. The Commission believes that the considerations upon which it relied in approving the elimination of position and exercise limits for SPX, OEX, and DJX options equally apply with respect to options on the NDX. As noted by the CBOE, the market capitalization of the NDX as of the date of filing of the proposal was $1.84 trillion. The ADTV for the period three months prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change for all underlying components of the index was 420 million shares. The Commission believes that the enormous market capitalization of the NDX and the deep, liquid market for the underlying component securities significantly reduce concerns regarding market manipulation or disruption in the underlying market. Removing position and exercise limits for NDX options may also bring additional depth and liquidity, in terms of both volume and open interest, to NDX options without significantly increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities. In addition, the Commission believes that financial requirements imposed by both the Exchange and the Commission adequately address concerns that a CBOE member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in NDX options. Current risk-based haircut and margin methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a member must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer. 12 Under the proposal, the CBOE also would have the authority under its rules to impose a higher margin requirement upon an account maintaining an under-hedged position when it determines a higher requirement is warranted. As noted in the CBOE rules, the clearing firm carrying the account would be subject to capital charges under Rule 15c3-1 under the Act to the extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement. 12 *See* SPX/OEX/DJX Pilot Approval Order, *supra* note 5. Finally, in approving the elimination of position and exercise limits for options on the SPX, OEX, and DJX, the Commission took note of the enhanced surveillance and reporting safeguards that the CBOE had adopted to allow it to detect and deter trading abuses that might arise as a result. 13 The CBOE represents that it monitors trading in NDX options in much the same manner as trading in SPX, OEX, and DJX options. These safeguards, including the 100,000-contract reporting requirement described above, would allow the CBOE to monitor large positions in order to identify instances of potential risk and to assess and respond to any market concerns at an early stage. In this regard, the Commission expects the CBOE to take prompt action, including timely communication with the Commission and other marketplace self-regulatory organizations responsible for oversight of trading in component stocks, should any unanticipated adverse market effects develop. Moreover, as previously noted, the Exchange has the flexibility to specify other reporting requirements, as well as to vary the limit at which the reporting requirements may be triggered. 13 *See,* in particular, SPX/OEX/DJX Pilot Approval Order, *supra* note 5. The Commission further notes that in eliminating position and exercise limits for FLEX NDX options, the CBOE is adopting the same additional rules for these options as for FLEX SPX and OEX options. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-41) be, and it hereby is, approved. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5973 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52659; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-85] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Rule Change To Adopt a Market Turner Priority for Index Options and Options on ETFs on the Exchange's Hybrid System October 24, 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 October 14, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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 The Exchange proposes to modify its Hybrid System rule regarding priority and allocation of trades in index options and options on ETFs to adopt a market turner priority. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to add a market turner priority (which has already been approved for CBOE's screen-based trading (“SBT”) rules) 6 to its Hybrid trading rules for index options and options on ETFs. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47628 (Apr. 3, 2003), 68 FR 17697 (Apr. 10, 2003) (SR-CBOE-00-55) (“SBT Order”). In April 2003, the Commission approved the CBOE's SBT rules (Chapters 40-46). 7 CBOE Rule 43.1 is the matching algorithm rule applicable to trading on the SBT platform. 8 The Exchange states that, essentially, CBOE Rule 43.1 calls for the use of either price-time priority or pro-rata priority as the base order allocation methodology. The rule then allows for three additional priority overlays: Public customer priority for public customer orders resting on the SBT system; participation right guarantees for certain qualifying market-makers; and a market turner priority for participants that are first to improve the CBOE's disseminated quote. These overlays are optional. 7 *See* SBT Order. 8 The Exchange states that no products currently trade pursuant to the SBT rules. The Exchange states that recently approved CBOE Rule 6.45B, 9 relating to priority and order allocation for index options and options on ETFs trading on the Exchange's Hybrid System, is based in part on CBOE Rule 43.1 in that it allows for the selection of price-time or pro-rata as an order allocation methodology (CBOE's Ultimate Matching Algorithm is also an option) and allows for customer priority and participation entitlement overlays. The Exchange now seeks to add a market turner overlay to CBOE Rule 6.45B so that index products trading on the Hybrid System may trade with a market turner priority. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51822 (Jun. 10, 2005), 70 FR 35321 (Jun. 17, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-87). Here is how the market turner priority overlay works under CBOE Rule 43.1: assume the pro-rata allocation methodology is in place for option class ABC and that no other overlays are in effect. Also assume that the market for a particular series is 1.00—1.15. If Market-Maker A enters a bid for 1.05 for 100 contracts, Market-Maker A becomes the market turner at 1.05. To the extent others join the 1.05 bid, Market-Maker A would have priority at that price until its bid size is exhausted. Thus, the market turner will receive 100% of an incoming order until its quote is exhausted. This is true even if a 1.10 bid is entered and is then traded while the market turner's 1.05 bid remains unexecuted ( *i.e.* , the market turner priority at a given price is retained once it is earned, even if the disseminated quote changes). The Exchange is proposing to add this priority overlay to its index Hybrid rules, 10 but with flexibility to allow the Exchange to allocate less than 100% of an incoming order to the market turner. For example, taking the same facts as the example described above, assume that the Exchange has in place a 40% allocation for market turners and that Market-Maker A is joined at 1.05 by Market-Maker B for 60 contracts and Market-Maker C for 60 contracts. Also assume a sell market order is received for 100 contracts. As proposed, Market-Maker A would have priority for 40 contracts. The remaining 60 contracts would be divided pro-rata between all three participants at 1.05 (20 contracts to each). Thus, with this “modified” market turner priority, Market-Maker A receives 60 contracts of the order (but is only guaranteed 40), whereas under CBOE Rule 43.1, Market-Maker A would be guaranteed 100 contracts. The Exchange states that this is the only material difference between CBOE Rule 43.1 and what the Exchange is proposing to adopt for CBOE Rule 6.45B. 10 The Exchange states that most options trading on CBOE currently trades on the Hybrid System. The Exchange is also clarifying in the proposed rule that the market turner priority only remains in effect for the duration of the trading day and that it cannot be established until after the opening rotation. Finally, the Exchange notes that, like public customer priority and the participation entitlement, the market turner priority is optional. The Exchange states that the appropriate Exchange procedures committee would determine whether one or more of these priority overlays would apply to a product and if more than one is selected, the sequence in which they would apply (consistent with applicable rules). The Exchange states that all determinations would be set forth in a regulatory circular. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange states that this change will provide it with another method to reward aggressive pricing in index options and options on ETFs trading on the Hybrid System. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular, in that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 14 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 Exchange 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. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The CBOE has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. In addition, the Exchange 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 will permit the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change without delay and thereby provide an incentive to parties on the Exchange to quote more aggressively as soon as possible. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 15 15 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 16 16 *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-CBOE-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 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-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 CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-85 and should be submitted on or before November 18, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5980 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 52652; File No. SR-CHX-2004-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3) To Eliminate its Requirement That Specialists Guarantee Execution of Limit Orders When Certain Conditions Occur in Another Market October 21, 2005. I. Introduction On June 21, 2004, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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 proposed rule change to amend Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3) of its rules to permit, rather than require, CHX specialists to guarantee execution of limit orders when certain conditions occur in another market. On July 5, 2005, the CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2005. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Amendment No. 1. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51997 (July 8, 2005), 70 FR 40760. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposes to amend Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3), which provides for execution of resting limit orders based on activity in other markets, to eliminate the requirement that CHX specialists guarantee execution of such limit orders when certain conditions occur in another market. For listed issues, the current rule generally obligates a CHX specialist to guarantee execution of limit orders resting in the specialist's book when the issue is being traded in the primary market at a price equal to or better than the limit price. [For Nasdaq securities, the rule permits, but does not require, a CHX specialist to guarantee execution of limit orders resting in the specialist's book, when another market center's quotation locks or crosses the limit price.] The CHX represents that the guarantees set forth in Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3), commonly referred to as “limit order protection” or “primary market protection,” were voluntarily adopted by the Exchange over 15 years ago to attract order flow. Under the proposed revision to Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3), the mandate that CHX specialists guarantee execution of resting limit orders for listed issues, based on triggering activity in other markets, would be deleted. Instead, the amended rule would permit CHX specialists to continue to provide such limit order protection guarantees solely on an issue-by-issue basis, on non-discriminatory terms approved by the Exchange. The Exchange's existing functionality providing for automated execution of resting limit orders would remain available for CHX specialists who elect to continue to guarantee limit order protection. 5 5 The CHX anticipates that for the foreseeable future, CHX specialists would continue to provide limit order protection voluntarily using the criteria for limit order protection previously set forth in Article XX, Rule 37(a)(3). Should the CHX receive a request from a specialist to alter the voluntary limit order protection criteria and agree to alter the functionality, the Exchange will notify all CHX participants of the change. The Commission believes any such change would need to be filed pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. The CHX provided the following rationale for the proposed rule change. First, as the industry has evolved, the Exchange's principal competitors for order flow, namely “third market” execution venues and alternative trading systems, do not provide comparable limit order protection guarantees. In addition, CHX order-sending firms now have free access to comprehensive monthly order execution quality statistics; thus, the CHX believes that “front-end” execution guarantees are no longer necessary to attract order flow. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the guarantee no longer serves a clear competitive purpose. Secondly, since the securities industry converted to decimal trading, the availability of liquidity at a best bid or offer price has declined, making it difficult for the CHX specialist, who chooses to offset his positions in another market, to access liquidity at the price the rule requires him to provide. Consequently, the Exchange believes it is no longer appropriate to mandate that specialists guarantee execution of resting limit orders for listed issues based on activity in other market centers. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission agrees that the environment has changed significantly since the Exchange voluntarily enacted its rule-based execution guarantees, and that consequently, the guarantees may no longer serve to foster competition between the markets. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). However, the Commission emphasizes that the deletion of the rule-based mandate regarding limit order protection does not in any way affect a CHX specialist's obligation to provide best execution, nor would it modify any other specialist obligations set forth in Article XXX of the CHX Rules. The Exchange must continue its surveillance of order executions to ensure that CHX specialists meet all of their obligations to each order. The Commission further emphasizes that, to the extent limit order protection guarantees are provided on a voluntary, issue-by-issue basis, such guarantees would have to be provided on a non-discriminatory basis. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2004-17), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 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. E5-5972 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52647; File No. SR-CHX-2005-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to the Exchange's Order Priority Rule and the Mandatory Use of Order Match Functionalities October 21, 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 February 3, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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. On September 16, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On October 6, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 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 *See* Form 19b-4 dated September 16, 2005 (“Amendment No. 1). Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 was a partial amendment in which the Exchange corrected errors in the previously filed Exhibit 4. The Exhibit 4 included in Amendment No. 2 replaced the previously filed Exhibit 4 in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, Precedence to Orders in Book, to clarify the requirements of the Exchange's priority rule and to require specialists to make use of Exchange-provided order match functionalities. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange's rules generally require Exchange specialists to give precedence to orders in their books for the purchase or sale of securities over orders that originate with the specialists as dealers. 5 Although specialists are not required to yield precedence to professional orders in certain circumstances, specialists are not permitted to trade ahead of customer orders. 6 5 *See* Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, Precedence to Orders in Book. 6 If a specialist accepts a professional order for the book that the specialist is not required to accept under the rules and policies of the Exchange, the specialist is not required to yield precedence to that order over the specialist's principal interest if the orders that originate from the specialist and its customer are limit orders at the same price and the specialist is displaying its interest through the quotation system. *See* Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2. Under the Exchange's rules, a “professional” order is an order for the account of a broker-dealer, the account of an associated person of a broker-dealer, or any account in which a broker-dealer or an associated person of a broker-dealer has any direct or indirect interest. *See* Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, Interpretations and Policy .04. The Exchange's systems incorporate several different order match functionalities that are designed to replace proposed specialist executions on a principal basis with executions of eligible customer orders in the specialist's book. These functionalities, among other things, prevent a specialist from manually executing an order on a principal basis when there is a customer order on the same side of the book that is eligible for execution. The Exchange's specialist firms have confirmed to the Exchange that they desire to, and are, using the Exchange-provided order match functionalities that are available to them. The proposed rule change would require specialists to continue such use, except when there are system problems with the order match functionalities 7 or, when two specific types of exceptions arise. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would benefit investors by preventing potential trading ahead violations from occurring. 7 The Exchange does not anticipate that systems problems will occur frequently, but has included this exception to the rule to address those relatively rare circumstances when the order match functionality is not operating properly due to unexpected consequences of unrelated systems changes or a software failure. This exception is not intended to allow participants to avoid the use of order match functionalities, but to recognize that there could be limited circumstances when the order match functionalities are malfunctioning. The Exchange anticipates that it would work quickly to correct any software or systems problems that prevented the use of the order match functionalities. The two exceptions to the general rule requiring use of order match functionalities are relatively narrow. First, the current rule change proposal would add an interpretation to the Exchange's rules to clarify a specialist's obligation to yield precedence to orders when receiving execution reports from other markets at the opening of the Exchange market. Specifically, the proposal would confirm that
(1)when a specialist has sought liquidity in a specialty stock in another market with respect to one or more orders in the book, and
(2)while waiting for an execution report from the other market, the specialist has executed the order(s) in the book, as principal, pursuant to the preopening order guarantee set out in the Exchange's rules, and
(3)the specialist then receives the execution report(s) from the other market at a price equal to the execution(s) given the orders pursuant to the preopening order guarantee, the specialist shall not be required to fill any other customer order(s) in its book as a result of having received the execution report from the other market. These situations may arise at the opening of the Exchange market, in actively-traded stocks, when the Exchange's specialists receive execution reports from other markets after the Exchange receives notice of a print or quote that triggers the execution of preopening orders in the Exchange's specialist book. 8 In these situations, a specialist has executed preopening orders at the guaranteed price and then receives a later report that he has been executed in another market that same price. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to clarify its precedence rule to confirm that in such situations, a specialist should not be required to provide the execution it receives from another market to an order received after the Exchange's market opened. 8 Under Exchange rules, the Exchange generally is open for trading during the hours that a stock trades in its primary market. See Exchange Article IX, Rule 10(b). The opening of the Exchange's market is triggered, in most instances, when the Exchange receives a trade report or quote from other markets. For example, the Exchange's specialists fill orders received before the opening (“preopening orders”) in listed securities at the primary market opening trading price. Preopening orders in Nasdaq/NM securities are filled at a single price that is at or better than the national best bid or offer at the first unlocked, uncrossed market that occurs on or after 8:30 a.m. to the extent that buy and sell orders offset each other. Additionally, the Exchange believes that when an Exchange specialist either
(1)received an inbound ITS execution in satisfaction of another market center's trade-through of the Exchange's bid or offer (and the specialist has already filled the customer order(s) that constituted the bid or offer traded through); or
(2)received an inbound ITS execution in satisfaction of a complaint lodged by an Exchange specialist against another market center, the specialist would not be required fill any other customer order(s) in his or its book as a result of having received the “satisfying” ITS execution. 9 9 See Exchange Article XXX, Rule 2, proposed Interpretations and Policy .08. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 10 The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 because the proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed mandatory use of Exchange-provided order match functionalities is specifically designed to protect investor interests. The proposed clarification of the priority rule is designed to confirm the scope of the priority rule, providing both investors and specialists with a more detailed understanding of a specialist's obligations. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. 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. 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve the 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-CHX-2005-01 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-CHX-2005-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-01 and should be submitted on or before November 18, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5976 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52655; File No. SR-FICC-2005-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Charges for Communications Fees To Continue Operating Legacy Communication Networks October 24, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on September 9, 2005, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) 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 FICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change would revise the fees charged to members that fail to migrate their communications systems from legacy networks to The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation's (“DTCC's”) Securely Managed and Reliable Technology (“SMART”) system 2 or to the Securities Industry Automation Corporation's (“SIAC's”) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) networks. 2 SMART is DTCC's centralized, end-to-end managed communications infrastructure that provides connectivity support for all post-trade clearance and settlement processing. Most of the services offered by DTCC's subsidiaries, The Depository Trust Company, the National Securities Clearing Corporation, and FICC are accessible through SMART. SMART is interoperable with SFTI. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 3 3 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by FICC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Beginning in 2003, FICC has periodically informed members of the need to migrate their telecommunications connectivity from SIAC's legacy based Broker and Access networks to DTCC's SMART system or SIAC's SFTI. 4 While several advantages exist in having all members successfully migrate, FICC's main objective in insourcing these services into its own data processing operations is to provide consistent business continuity planning capabilities across all FICC services. In the event of a large-scale regional disruption, any member accessing FICC through a legacy network will not have the benefits provided by the other communications vehicles which could create exposure to these members and their counterparties. 5 4 DTCC Important Notices Z#0008, Z#0009, and Z#0010. 5 SMART is designed to withstand catastrophic disaster scenarios and is set up to operate in DTCC's multiple remote sites to ensure its operability in the event of disruption. Legacy network connections are not automatically configured to “fail over” to DTCC's remote processing sites and therefore do not provide members using these networks with the resilience that would be needed in the event of a large-scale regional disruption. While most FICC members have complied with stated migration requirements, several members continue to access FICC through legacy networks, which is imposing significant unnecessary costs on FICC for continued support of these systems. In order to encourage these members to migrate and in order to equitably allocate costs among its members, FICC intends to allocate its costs for continued support of legacy networks among the members using such systems on a pro rata basis. FICC plans to soon issue an important notice to members specifying the date such fees will become effective. 6 6 FICC expects that the migration deadline will be set for the end of 2005. In order to avoid bearing these costs, members currently using legacy systems are required to take the following actions:
(i)As soon as possible, ensure adequate communications connectivity through SMART and/or SFTI,
(ii)successfully complete testing through the newly-established pathways,
(iii)complete full conversion of all input/output for applicable FICC applications directly to/from FICC through SMART and/or SFTI, and
(iv)cancel the legacy network connections. The proposed change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act 7 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it will enable FICC to equitably allocate costs among its members. 7 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 9 thereunder because the proposed rule establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge. 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, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 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-FICC-2005-15 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-FICC-2005-15. 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 office of FICC and on FICC's Web site at *http://www.ficc.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-FICC-2005-15 and should be submitted on or before November 18, 2005. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5971 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52648; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-63] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Proposal To Place an Immediate Moratorium on the Qualification and Registration of New Competitive Traders and Registered Competitive Market Makers October 21, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “non-controversial” rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act, 3 and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change is an Information Memo announcing a moratorium on the qualification and registration of new Competitive Traders (“CTs”) and Registered Competitive Market Makers (“RCMMs”) covered in Rules 110 and 107A, respectively. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange has decided to study the future viability of CTs and RCMMs in light of the new Hybrid Market environment. While the Exchange conducts this study, it considers it appropriate to place a moratorium on the qualification and registration of new CTs and RCMMs. CTs and RCMMs were first authorized by the Commission in 1964 5 and 1978, 6 respectively, to generate competition to specialists, add depth and liquidity to the market and create supplemental market making traders on the Exchange. NYSE Rules 110 and 111 govern CTs, and NYSE Rule 107A governs RCMMs. CTs and RCMMs can both conduct proprietary trading under the market maker exemption found in paragraph (1)(A) of Section 11(a) of the Act. 7 CTs' trading must be at least 75% stabilizing, and RCMMs must be ready to enter the market with one round lot if called upon by a floor official or broker to narrow the quotation spread or add liquidity to the market. 5 NYSE Rule 110 (amended May 21, 1964 and July 16, 1964, effective August 3, 1964). 6 Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 14718 (May 1, 1978), 43 FR 19738 (May 8, 1978) (SR-NYSE-78-24). 7 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(A). The Exchange's rules require that members must be registered by the Exchange before they are able to conduct business as a CT or RCMM, and in order to be registered must, besides meeting other requirements, pass an examination prescribed by the Exchange. The volume and speed of the market has increased dramatically since CTs and RCMMs were first created, and significant changes have occurred with respect to market dynamics. The Exchange believes that these changes coupled with the Exchange's move to a Hybrid Market makes this review timely and appropriate. Currently there are only 11 active RCMMs, and the sole CT has not been active for several years. As part of this review, the Exchange will consider the diminished impact and usage of RCMMs and the effective non-usage of the CT status, the resources required to surveil their trading, and the significant market timing and informational advantage that they enjoy. The Exchange will also examine any regulatory requirements needed to increase market maker liquidity obligations. The Exchange will issue an Information Memo announcing the moratorium. The Exchange notes that the proposed moratorium will not impact those members currently registered as CTs and RCMMs. Accordingly, during the period that the moratorium is in place, NYSE Rules 110 and 111 and NYSE Rule 107A will continue to govern the actions of current CTs and RCMMs, respectively. 8 The Exchange will promptly file for approval with the Commission any changes to the existing rules that the Exchange determines are warranted upon completion of its review. 8 Telephone conversation between Donald Siemer, Director, Market Surveillance, NYSE and Ronesha Butler, Special Counsel, and Sara Gillis, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on October 6, 2005. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 9 that an Exchange have rules that are designed 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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-2005-63 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-63. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-2005-63 and should be submitted on or before November 18, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-5975 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Emergency Consideration 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 Pub. L. 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection request included in this notice is for revisions to an existing information collection. 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 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, 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, *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov* . The information collection listed below has been submitted to OMB for expedited Emergency Clearance. SSA is requesting Emergency Consideration from OMB by 11/14/2005. Your comments on the information collection are requested by that date. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 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 Collection:* Emergency information collection (revision). *Number of Respondents:* 13,600,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 9 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 2,040,000 hours. Dated: October 20, 2005. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. 05-21492 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 8
5 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 240.15
  • Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of availability
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 78q–1
U.S.C.§ 78k
C.F.R.§ 422.103
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 20
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite17 CFR 240.15
Cites 13 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.