Notices. Notice
18,154 words·~83 min read·
/register/2006/07/18/06-6284·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54136; File No. 4-517] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Order Granting Approval of Plan for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. July 12, 2006. Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) 1 and 11A(a)(3)(B) 2 of the Securities Exchange of 1934 (“Act”), granting approval and declaring effective a plan for allocating regulatory responsibility filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Act, 3 by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(“NASD”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 2 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B). 3 17 CFR 240.17d-2. Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities allocated to it under the plan. At the same time, Nasdaq is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to NASD. 4 4 On January 13, 2006, the Commission approved Nasdaq's application for registration as a national securities exchange. The Commission conditioned the operation of the Nasdaq Exchange upon satisfaction of several requirements, one of which was the approval by the Commission of an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 between Nasdaq and NASD.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128, 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006). Commission approval of this plan allocating regulatory responsibility satisfies this requirement. I. Introduction Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, 5 among other things, requires every national securities exchange and registered securities association (“SRO”) to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) or 19(g)(2) of the Act. 6 Section 17(d)(1) of the Act was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO. 7 With respect to common members of two or more SROs, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). 7 Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S.
Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session. 32 (1975). To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 8 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 9 Rule 17d-2 under the Act permits SROs to propose joint plans allocating regulatory responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with respect to common members. Under paragraph
(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among self-regulatory organizations, to remove impediments to and foster the development of a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, any self-regulatory organization is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that are allocated by the plan to another self-regulatory organization. 8 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to designate a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, the rules thereunder, and SRO rules. 9 17 CFR 240.17d-2. On April 17, 2006, the Commission published notice of the filing by Nasdaq and NASD of a joint plan allocating regulatory responsibility for common members. 10 No comments were received. On July 12, 2006, Nasdaq and NASD filed an amended joint plan for allocating regulatory responsibility. 11 The plan, as amended, is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of Nasdaq and NASD. Included in the plan is an attachment (“The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rules Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with NASD” referred to herein as the “Nasdaq Certification”) that clearly delineates regulatory responsibilities with respect to specified Nasdaq rules and specified federal securities laws. The Nasdaq Certification lists every Nasdaq rule that is identical or substantially similar to a NASD rule for which, under the plan, the NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. The Nasdaq Certification also includes the federal securities laws for which, under the plan, the NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. 10 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53628 (April 10, 2006), 71 FR 19763. 11 Nasdaq and NASD made clarifying changes in the amended plan, and included a list of the federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in the Nasdaq Certification for which, under the plan, the NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. These changes are non-substantive, and therefore the Commission is not seeking comment on the amended joint plan. II. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-2(c) 12 in that the proposed plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters cooperation and coordination among self-regulatory organizations, and removes impediments to and fosters the development of the national market system. In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed plan could reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to the NASD certain responsibilities for common members that would otherwise be performed by both Nasdaq and NASD. The proposed plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because Nasdaq and NASD will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the plan, the plan should promote investor protection. 12 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c). The Commission notes that Nasdaq and NASD have allocated regulatory responsibility for all Nasdaq rules that are identical or substantially similar to NASD rules, as set forth in the Nasdaq Certification. 13 According to the plan, Nasdaq and NASD will undergo an annual review of the Nasdaq Certification to add Nasdaq rules that are identical or substantially similar to NASD rules; delete Nasdaq rules that are no longer identical or substantially similar to NASD rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the Nasdaq Certification continue to be Nasdaq rules that are identical or substantially similar to NASD rules. The Commission today is declaring effective and approving a plan that allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD for the oversight and enforcement of all Nasdaq rules that are identical or substantially similar to the rules of the NASD for common members of Nasdaq and NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Nasdaq Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the plan provided that the parties are only adding to, deleting from or confirming changes to Nasdaq rules in the Nasdaq Certification that are identical or substantially similar to NASD rules. However, should Nasdaq or NASD decide to add a Nasdaq rule to the Nasdaq Certification that is not identical or substantially similar to an NASD rule, or delete a Nasdaq rule from the Nasdaq Certification that is identical or substantially similar to an NASD rule, or leave on the Nasdaq Certification a Nasdaq rule that is no longer identical or substantially similar to an NASD rule, such a change would be an amendment to the plan which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 13 Nasdaq has represented that there are no Nasdaq rules that are identical or substantially similar to NASD rules that are not included in the Nasdaq Certification. Telephone call between Jeffrey Davis, Nasdaq Office of General Counsel, and Rebekah Liu, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on June 19, 2006. Nasdaq and NASD have also set forth the federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in the Nasdaq Certification for which, under the plan, NASD will bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. The Commission notes that any changes to this list of federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, would be an amendment to the plan between Nasdaq and NASD and therefore must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act. The plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory responsibility, and Nasdaq will retain full responsibility, for surveillance and enforcement of trading activities or practices solely involving Nasdaq's own marketplace. The plan also permits Nasdaq and NASD to terminate the plan for various reasons, including the non-payment of fees, for cause, and for convenience. The Commission notes, however, that while the plan permits the parties to terminate the plan, the allocation to NASD of the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the plan cannot be reallocated by the parties themselves under the terms of the plan. Rule 17d-2 requires that any allocation or re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2. III. Conclusion This Order gives effect to the plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-517. The parties to the plan shall notify all members affected by the plan of their rights and obligations under the plan. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Sections 17(d) and 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the plan, in File No. 4-517, between Nasdaq and NASD filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 is approved and declared effective. *It is therefore ordered* that Nasdaq is relieved of those responsibilities allocated to NASD under the plan in File No. 4-517. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34). [FR Doc. E6-11327 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54131; File No. SR-Amex-2006-66] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program July 12, 2006. 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 10, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “Amex”) 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. Amex has designated this proposal as noncontroversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change 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). The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rules 903(h) and 903C(a)(v) to extend until July 12, 2007, its pilot program for listing and trading Short Term Option Series (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.amex.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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program for an additional year, through July 12, 2007. 5 The Pilot Program allows Amex to list and trade Short Term Option Series, which expire one week after the date on which a series is opened. Under the Pilot Program, Amex may select up to five approved options classes on which Short Term Option Series could be opened. 6 A series could be opened on any Friday that is a business day and would expire on the next Friday that is a business day. If a Friday were not a business day, the series could be opened (or would expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Friday. Short Term Option Series would be P.M.-settled, except for Short Term Option Series on indexes, which would be A.M.-settled. 5 The Commission approved the Pilot Program on July 12, 2005. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52014 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41244 (July 18, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-035). Under Amex Rules 903(h) and 903C(a)(v), the Pilot Program is scheduled to expire on July 12, 2006. 6 A Short Term Option Series could be opened in any options class that satisfied the applicable listing criteria under Amex rules ( *i.e.* , stock options, options on exchange traded funds as defined under Commentary .06 of Amex Rule 915, or options on indexes). The Exchange could also list and trade Short Term Option Series on any options class that is selected by another exchange that employs a similar pilot program. For each class selected for the Pilot Program, the Exchange usually would open five Short Term Option Series in that class for each expiration date. The strike price of each Short Term Option Series would be fixed at a price per share, with at least two strike prices above and two strike prices below the value of the underlying security or calculated index value at about the time that the Short Term Option Series is opened. Amex would not open a Short Term Option Series in the same week that the corresponding monthly options series is expiring, because the monthly options series in its last week before expiration is functionally equivalent to the Short Term Option Series. The intervals between strike prices on a Short Term Option Series would be the same as the intervals between strike prices on the corresponding monthly options series. The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series can provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. At the same time, the Exchange is cognizant of the need to be cautious in introducing a product that can increase the number of outstanding strike prices. While the Exchange has not listed any Short Term Option Series during the first year of the Pilot Program, there has been significant investor interest in trading short-term options at the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”). 7 To have the ability to respond to potential customer interest, and to remain competitive, the Exchange proposes the continuation of the Pilot Program. 7 CBOE filed a report with the Commission on June 13, 2006, stating that CBOE has listed Short Term Options Series in four different options classes. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53984 (June 14, 2006), 71 FR 35718 (June 21, 2006) (extending CBOE's Short Term Option Series pilot program). In the original proposal to establish the Pilot Program, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, expansion, or permanent approval of the program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report providing an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. 8 Since the Exchange did not list any One Week Options Series during the first year of the Pilot Program, there is no data available to compile such a report at this time. Therefore the Exchange did not submit a report with its proposal to extend the Pilot Program. 8 *See* Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-Amex-2005-035, filed March 23, 2005. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series could stimulate customer interest in options and provide a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular in that it is designed 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 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 No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 12 Because the foregoing 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. 13 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 13 Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give written notice to the Commission of its intent to file the proposed rule change five business days prior to filing. The Commission has determined to waive the five-day pre-filing requirement for this proposal. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to waive the operative delay if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become effective prior to the 30th day after filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will allow the benefits of the Pilot Program to continue without interruption. 14 Therefore, the Commission designates that the proposal will become operative on July 12, 2006. 15 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 15 As set forth in the Exchange's original filing proposing the Pilot Program, if the Exchange were to propose an extension, expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. The report would include, at a minimum:
(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Short Term Option Series were opened;
(2)an assessment of the appropriateness of the options classes selected for the Pilot Program;
(3)an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of Amex, OPRA, and market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4)any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how Amex addressed such problems;
(5)any complaints that Amex received during the operation of the Pilot Program and how Amex addressed them; and
(6)any additional information that would assist in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program. The report must be submitted to the Commission at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program. *See* Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-Amex-2005-035, filed March 23, 2005. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-Amex-2006-66 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-66. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-66 and should be submitted on or before August 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11326 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54134; File No. SR-NASD-2005-079] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to Proposed Rule Change To Revise Rule 10322 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure Which Pertains to Subpoenas and the Power To Direct Appearances July 12, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 29, 2006, May 12, 2006, and July 7, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, to the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. On June 17, 2005, the NASD filed with the Commission the proposed rule change. On July 13, 2005, the Commission published for comment the proposed rule change in the **Federal Register** . 3 NASD filed Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to respond to the comments received, after the publication of the proposed rule change in the **Federal Register** , and to make revisions to the rule change as described herein. 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 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51981 (July 6, 2005), 70 FR 40411 (July 13, 2005). 4 Amendment No. 1 addresses comment letters received by the Commission in response to the publication of the proposed rule change in the **Federal Register** (for initial notice of proposed rule change see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51981 (July 6, 2005), 70 FR 40411 (July 13, 2005)) and proposes certain amendments in response to these comments, including requiring that all subpoenas be issued by an arbitrator. Amendment No. 2 revises the regulation text and certain sections of the rule filing in order to clarify the process for issuing a subpoena to both parties and non-parties. Amendment No. 3 revises Amendment No. 2 to clarify current practice for deciding discovery-related motions. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to revise Rule 10322 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (“Code”), which pertains to subpoenas and the power to direct appearances. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. 5 Proposed new language is *Italic* and proposed deletions are in brackets. 5 The rules proposed in this filing will be renumbered as appropriate following Commission approval of the pending revisions to the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes; *see* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-158); and the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes; *see* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-011). 10322. Subpoenas and Power to Direct Appearances
(a)[ **Subpoenas** ] *To the fullest extent possible, parties should produce documents and make witnesses available to each other without the use of subpoenas* . [The] [a] *A* rbitrators [and any counsel of record to the proceeding] shall have the [power of the subpoena process as provided by law. All parties shall be given a copy of a subpoena upon its issuance. Parties shall produce witnesses and present proofs to the fullest extent possible without resort to the subpoena process.] *authority to issue subpoenas for the production of documents or the appearance of witnesses* . *(b) A party may make a written motion requesting that an arbitrator issue a subpoena to a party or a non-party. The motion must include a draft subpoena and must be filed with the Director, with an additional copy for the arbitrator. The requesting party must serve the motion and draft subpoena on each other party, at the same time and in the same manner as on the Director. The requesting party may not serve the motion or draft subpoena on a non-party.* *(c) If a party receiving a motion and draft subpoena objects to the scope or propriety of the subpoena, that party shall, within 10 days of service of the motion, file written objections with the Director, with an additional copy for the arbitrator, and shall serve copies on all other parties at the same time and in the same manner as on the Director. The party that requested the subpoena may respond to the objections. The arbitrator responsible for deciding discovery-related motions shall rule promptly on the issuance and scope of the subpoena regardless of whether any objections are made.* *(d) If the arbitrator issues a subpoena, the party that requested the subpoena must serve the subpoena at the same time and in the same manner on all parties and, if applicable, on any non-party receiving the subpoena.* *(e) Any party that receives documents in response to a subpoena served on a non-party shall provide notice to all other parties within five days of receipt of the documents. Thereafter, any party may request copies of such documents and, if such a request is made, the documents must be provided within 10 days following receipt of the request. The party requesting the documents shall be responsible for the reasonable costs associated with the production of the copies.* [ **(b) Power to Direct Appearances and Production of Documents** ] *(f)* [The] *An* arbitrator[(s)] shall be empowered without resort to the subpoena process to direct the appearance of any person employed *by* or associated with any member of the Association and/or the production of any records in the possession or control of such persons or members. Unless [the] *an* arbitrator[(s)] directs otherwise, the party requesting the appearance of a person or the production of documents under this Rule shall bear all reasonable costs of such appearance and/or production. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Proposal As described in the original rule filing, NASD proposed to revise Rule 10322 of the Code to provide for a 10-day notice requirement before a party issues a subpoena to a non-party for pre-hearing discovery. In addition, NASD proposed clarifying the requirements regarding the service of subpoenas by specifying that a party that issues a subpoena must serve a copy of the subpoena to all parties and the entity receiving the subpoena on the same day. NASD is amending the proposal set forth in the original rule filing to allow only arbitrators to issue subpoenas for both parties and non-parties, whether for discovery or for the appearance at a hearing before the arbitrators. In addition, NASD is proposing to require a party to provide notice to all other parties that it has received documents in response to a non-party subpoena and to provide copies of those documents at the request of another party. NASD is also clarifying that, in most cases, a public arbitrator will rule on all motions requesting a subpoena. Lastly, NASD is proposing some minor changes to the original proposal, including rewriting certain portions of the rule text in plain English. Comments on the Proposed Rule Change The Commission received 12 comment letters in response to the publication of the proposed rule in the **Federal Register** . 6 NASD's response to the issues raised in these letters is set forth below. 6 Comment letters (“Comment Letters”) were submitted by Richard Skora, dated July 12, 2005 (“Skora Letter”); Seth E. Lipner, Deutsch & Lipner, dated July 13, 2005 (“Lipner Letter”); Steve Buchwalter, Law Offices of Steve A. Buchwalter, P.C., dated July 13, 2005 (“Buchwalter Letter”); Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated July 19, 2005 (“Caruso Letter”); Dennis M. Pape, dated July 20, 2005 (“Pape Letter”); Al Van Kampen, Rohde & Van Kampen PLLC, dated July 25, 2005 (“Van Kampen Letter”); Phil Cutler, Cutler Nylander & Hayton, dated August 1, 2005 (“Cutler Letter”); Avery B. Goodman, A.B. Goodman Law Firm, Ltd., dated August 1, 2005 and August 2, 2005 (“Goodman Letters”); Jill Gross, Director, Barbara Black, Director, and Richard Downey, Student Intern, Pace Investor Rights Project, dated August 2, 2005 (“Gross Letter”); Tim Canning, dated August 3, 2005 (“Canning Letter”); and Rosemary J. Shockman, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated August 4, 2005 (“Shockman Letter”). Several commenters to NASD's proposal stated that only arbitrators should have the authority to issue subpoenas in arbitration. 7 Some of these commenters believed that this limitation should apply only to discovery subpoenas while other commenters suggested that it apply to all subpoenas. In support of their position, a number of these commenters noted that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides only arbitrators, and not attorneys, with the authority to issue subpoenas. 8 Furthermore, one commenter noted that only arbitrators have the authority to issue subpoenas under the Uniform Arbitration Act and the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. 9 Lastly, two commenters noted that, under the laws of several states, attorneys do not have the authority to issue subpoenas. 10 7 *See* Lipner, Buchwalter, Van Kampen, Canning, and Shockman Letters. 8 There is a split of opinion among the federal appellate courts as to whether arbitrators may issue discovery subpoenas or only subpoenas for attendance or production of documents at a hearing. *Compare In re Matter of Arbitration Between Security Life Ins. Co. of America* , 228 F.3d 865, 870-871 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Although the efficient resolution of disputes through arbitration necessarily entails a limited discovery process, we believe this interest in efficiency is furthered by permitting a party to review and digest relevant documentary evidence prior to the arbitration hearing. We thus hold that implicit in an arbitration panel's power to subpoena relevant documents for production at a hearing is the power to order the production of relevant documents for review by a party prior to the hearing.”) *with Hay Group, Inc.* v. * E.B.S. Acquisition Corp.* , 360 F.3d 404, 407 (3rd Cir. 2004) (“The power to require a non-party ‘to bring' items ‘with him' clearly applies only to situations in which the non-party accompanies the items to the arbitration proceeding, not to situations in which the items are simply sent or brought by a courier. In addition * * * a non-party may be compelled ‘to bring' items ‘with him' only when the non-party is summoned ‘to attend before [the arbitrator] as a witness.' ”). Furthermore, while the Fourth Circuit, like the Third Circuit, found that the FAA does not grant an arbitrator the authority to subpoena a non-party for purposes of pre-hearing discovery, it did establish the possibility that a party might, “under unusual circumstances,” petition the district court to compel pre-arbitration discovery upon a showing of “special need or hardship.” * Comsat Corp.* v. *Nat'l Science Found.* , 190 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 1999). 9 *See* Lipner Letter. 10 *See* Lipner Letter and Van Kampen Letter. NASD has determined that the proposed rule should be revised to allow only arbitrators to issue subpoenas to both parties and non-parties, whether for discovery or for the appearance at a hearing before the arbitrators, but for reasons other than those suggested by the commenters. NASD believes that providing arbitrators with greater control over the issuance of subpoenas will help to protect investors, associated persons, and other parties from abuse in the discovery process. In addition, the establishment of a uniform, nationwide rule will reduce potential confusion for parties and their counsel regarding whether they have the ability to issue subpoenas, minimize gamesmanship in the subpoena process, and make the rule easier to administer. Under current practice, the arbitrator responsible for deciding discovery-related motions typically is the chairperson of the panel. Thus, except in certain intra-industry cases or unless the public customer agrees otherwise, the arbitrator ruling on a motion requesting a subpoena will be a public arbitrator. 11 In those situations where the chairperson is unable to rule promptly on the motion for a subpoena, another public arbitrator on the panel shall decide the motion except when the public customer agrees otherwise. 12 A non-public arbitrator will rule on a motion requesting a subpoena only in those intra-industry cases where the panel is composed exclusively of non-public arbitrators or where the public customer agrees otherwise. 13 Additionally, the arbitrator responsible for deciding discovery-related motions may elect to refer any discovery-related issue to the full panel. 14 NASD has proposed to codify the current practice described above in the pending revisions to the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes 15 and the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes. 16 11 *See* NASD Rules 10308(c)(5) and 10321(e). 12 *See* NASD Rule 10321(e). 13 *See* NASD Rule 10321(e). 14 *See* NASD Rule 10321(e). 15 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-158). 16 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-011). One commenter who does not support the proposed rule change stated that arbitrators should be required to give written explanations of all discovery decisions. 17 In addition, this commenter indicated that NASD should enforce current Rule 10322 with respect to the requirement that parties produce witnesses and present documents to the fullest extent possible without resort to the subpoena process. 17 *See* Skora Letter. NASD disagrees that arbitrators should be required to give written explanations of all discovery decisions, because such a requirement would significantly increase the time and costs associated with the discovery process. Furthermore, NASD believes that this issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 18 With respect to the commenter's assertion regarding the enforcement of Rule 10322, NASD does expect all parties to cooperate to the fullest extent possible without the use of subpoenas, and arbitrators may sanction parties for discovery abuse or make a disciplinary referral, as appropriate, at the end of the case if such cooperation is not provided. 18 Telephone conversation between Jean I. Feeney, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Dispute Resolution, NASD, and Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, (May 1, 2005). One commenter suggested several changes to the proposed rule. 19 First, the commenter stated that the term “fullest” (which is in current Rule 10322) should be included in paragraph
(a)of the proposed rule to ensure that parties do not avoid their discovery responsibilities in arbitration. Second, the commenter asserted that the proposal should specify that service of a subpoena must be made in precisely the same manner on everyone. Third, the commenter indicated that a party that receives documents in response to a non-party subpoena should be required to provide copies of the documents to opposing counsel within five calendar days of receipt of the documents. 19 *See* Caruso Letter. NASD agrees with this commenter that the term “fullest” should be added in paragraph
(a)of the rule to emphasize that, to the fullest extent possible, parties should produce documents and make witnesses available to each other without the use of subpoenas. NASD also agrees that the method of service of a subpoena should be the same on all parties and the non-party receiving the subpoena and proposes to amend paragraph
(d)of the rule to reflect this requirement. Lastly, NASD agrees that documents received in response to a non-party subpoena should be made available to other parties. NASD does not believe, however, that a party that receives documents in response to a non-party subpoena should be required automatically to provide copies to another party, which may have no interest in them or may not want to incur potentially significant copying costs. Therefore, NASD proposes to require a party to provide notice to all other parties that it has received documents in response to a non-party subpoena and to provide copies of those documents at the request of another party. 20 Once a party receives a request for copies of documents that were received in response to a non-party subpoena, that party will have ten calendar days to provide the copies to the requesting party. NASD believes that a ten calendar day time frame is more appropriate than the one suggested by the commenter because it will allow enough time to copy a potentially voluminous amount of records, and it is also a time frame that is frequently used in the proposed Code revision. 20 A party would have five calendar days after the receipt of subpoenaed documents from a non-party to provide notice to all other parties. One commenter who does not support the rule proposal indicated that it would, in effect, only impact member firms since customers rarely need documents from non-parties in arbitration. 21 In addition, this commenter expressed concern that arbitrators will not review subpoenas promptly. 21 *See* Pape Letter. NASD disagrees with this commenter. The proposed rule will apply equally to all parties that use NASD's forum. Even though broker-dealers may use non-party subpoenas more often than do customers or associated persons, the proposed rule will be applied to all parties equally, thereby ensuring that NASD's forum is fair for everyone. NASD does not believe that the proposal will significantly delay the discovery process, as arbitrators will receive training specifically addressing subpoenas in the event that the SEC approves the proposed rule change. Furthermore, parties that volunteer to use NASD's discovery arbitrator pilot program may recognize a further reduction in the time needed for the review of subpoenas, especially in complex cases that involve numerous subpoenas. One commenter, who supports the proposal, raised an issue that was not addressed in the original rule filing. 22 This commenter stated that NASD should revise Rule 10322 to establish a witness fee for non-parties and to prevent employees of a party from being reimbursed by an opposing party for testifying. 22 *See* Goodman Letter. NASD disagrees with this commenter because the reimbursement of witnesses for testifying at a hearing historically has not been a significant issue in NASD's forum. Consequently, NASD is only proposing non-substantive changes to the paragraph of the rule addressing costs involving the appearance of witnesses or the production of documents. One commenter supports the rule, but indicates that parties should be given at least ten days to oppose the issuance of a subpoena. 23 This commenter also stated that a non-party subpoena should be issued only if the documents relate to the matter in controversy and are not available from the parties. 23 * See* Canning Letter. NASD notes that a provision giving ten days to object to the issuance of a subpoena is contained in the amended rule proposal. Arbitrators will use their discretion to determine whether to issue a subpoena, or whether to limit the scope of a subpoena before it is issued. Lastly, NASD notes that some issues raised by several commenters, such as the issuance of a subpoena by an attorney before a panel has ruled on an objection to the subpoena, are not addressed herein as they became moot as a result of the revisions to the amended rule proposal discussed above. 24 24 *See* Lipner, Caruso, Gross, Canning, and Shockman Letters. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule will make the arbitration subpoena process more orderly and efficient, thereby improving the forum for all parties. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments on the proposed changes in the initial rule filing were solicited by the Commission in response to the publication of SR-NASD-2005-079, which proposed to amend Rule 10322 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure primarily to provide for a 10-day notice requirement before a party issues a subpoena to a non-party for pre-hearing discovery. 25 The Commission received 12 comment letters in response to the **Federal Register** publication of SR-NASD-2005-079. 26 The comments are summarized above. 25 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51981, *supra* note 3. 26 *See* Comment Letters, *supra* note 6. 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 NASD 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-NASD-2005-079 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-079. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-2005-079 and should be submitted on or before August 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 27 27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11325 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54125; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-93] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 431 (“Margin Requirements”) and Rule 726 (“Delivery of Options Disclosure Document and Prospectus”) To Expand the Products Eligible for Customer Portfolio Margining and Cross-Margining Pilot Program July 11, 2006. I. Introduction On December 29, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“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” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, a proposed rule change seeking to amend NYSE Rules 431 and 726 to expand the scope of products that are eligible for treatment as part of the Commission's approved portfolio margin pilot program (the “Pilot”). 3 The NYSE seeks to expand the list of eligible products in the Pilot to include security futures contracts 4 and listed single stock options. The proposed rule change was published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, January 23, 2006. 5 The Commission received three comment letters in response to the **Federal Register** notice. 6 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 52031 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42130 (July 21, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2002-19). On July 14, 2005, the Commission approved on a Pilot Basis expiring July 31, 2007, amendments to Exchange Rule 431 to permit the use of a prescribed risk-based margin requirement (“portfolio margin”) for certain specified products as an alternative to the strategy based margin requirements currently required in section
(a)through
(f)of the Rule. Amendments to Rule 726 were also approved to require disclosure to, and written acknowledgment from, customers in connection with the use of portfolio margin. *See also* NYSE Information Memo 05-56, dated August 18, 2005 for additional information. 4 For purposes of the proposed rule change, term “security futures” utilizes the definition at section 3(a)(55) of the Exchange Act, excluding narrow-based security indexes. 5 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 53126 (Jan. 13, 2006), 71 FR 3586 Jan. 23, 2006). 6 *See* letter from Gerard J. Quinn, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry Association, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated February 13, 2006 (“SIA Letter”); letter from Barbara Wierzynski, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Futures Industry Association, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated February 13, 2006 (“FIA Letter”); and letter from Severino Renna, Director, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, dated February 13, 2006 (“Citigroup Letter”). The comment letters and the Exchange's responses to the comments 7 are summarized below. This order approves the proposed rule change. 7 *See* letter from Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, NYSE, to Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated June 2, 2006 (“NYSE Response”). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change a. Summary of Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NYSE Rule 431 to include listed security futures and listed single stock options as eligible products for customer portfolio margining under the Pilot. 8 The proposed rule change also includes amendments to NYSE Rule 726 to conform the required customer disclosure to the changes made in the proposed rule change, including the expansion of eligible products. 8 The list of eligible products under the Pilot currently includes listed broad-based securities index options, warrants, futures, futures options and related exchange-traded funds. The NYSE also has filed an additional rule change to, among other things, further expand the list of eligible products for the Pilot to include equities and unlisted derivatives. *See* Exchange Act Release No. 53577 (March 30, 2006), 71 FR 17536 (April 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-13); *see also* Exchange Act Release No. 53576 (March 30, 2006), 71 FR 17519 (April 6, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-14). The comment period for these proposed rule filings ended on May 11, 2006. Section 7(a) 9 of the Exchange Act 10 empowers the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”) to prescribe rules and regulations regarding credit that broker-dealers can extend to their customers on securities transactions. Pursuant to this authority, the Federal Reserve Board adopted Regulation T. 11 The Federal Reserve Board, in the 1998 amendments, removed from the scope of Regulation T transactions governed by a portfolio margin rule approved by the Commission. 12 The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”) authorized the trading of futures on individual stocks and narrow-based stock indexes, *i.e.,* securities futures products. 13 Under the CFMA, the Federal Reserve Board has authority to either issue margin rules for securities futures or delegate joint authority to the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) to issue such rules. The Federal Reserve Board delegated authority to the Commission and CFTC, and in 2002 the Commission and the CFTC jointly issued margin requirements for securities futures products. 14 The jointly issued rules exempted from their scope transactions in securities futures products subject to SRO portfolio margin rules. 15 9 15 U.S.C. 78g. 10 15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* 11 12 CFR 220.1 *et seq.* 12 *See* Federal Reserve System, “Securities Credit Transactions; Borrowing by Brokers and Dealers”; Regulations G, T, U and X; Docket Nos. R-0905, R-0923 and R-0944, 63 FR 2806 (January 16, 1998). 13 Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 14 Exchange Act Release 46292 (August 1, 2002), 67 FR 53146 (August 14, 2002). 15 17 CFR 242.400(c)(2). NYSE Rule 431 prescribes specific margin requirements for customers based on the type of securities products held in their accounts. In April 1996, the Exchange established the Rule 431 Committee (the “Committee”) to assess the adequacy of Rule 431 on an ongoing basis, review margin requirements and make recommendations for change. The Exchange's Board of Directors has approved a number of proposed amendments resulting from the Committee's recommendations since the Committee was established. 16 The NYSE noted in its rule proposal that the Committee endorsed the proposed rule change discussed below. 16 The Committee is composed of several member organizations,including Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., Bear Stearns Corp. and Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and several self-regulatory organizations, including: the NYSE, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and the National Association of Securities Dealers. b. Portfolio Margining Portfolio margining is a methodology for calculating a customer's margin requirement by “shocking” a portfolio of financial instruments at different equidistant points along a range representing a potential percentage increase and decrease in the value of the instrument or underlying instrument in the case of a derivative product. For example, the calculation points could be spread equidistantly along a range bounded on one end by a 15% increase in market value of the instrument and at the other end by a 15% decrease in market value. Gains and losses for each instrument in the portfolio are netted at each calculation point along the range to derive a potential portfolio-wide gain or loss for the point. The margin requirement is the amount of the greatest portfolio-wide loss among the calculation points. Under the Exchange's proposed rule, the range of products eligible for portfolio margining would be expanded from securities and futures based on broad-based U.S. securities indexes ( *e.g.,* the S&P 500 or S&P 100) to include security futures products and listed single stock options. The gain or loss on each position in the portfolio is calculated at each of 10 equidistant points (“valuation points”) set at and between the upper and lower market range points. Under the current rule, the range for non-high capitalization indexes is between a market increase of 10% and a decrease of 10%. The range for high capitalization indexes is between a market increase of 6% and a decrease of 8%. 17 The range for portfolios of securities futures products and single stock options under the proposed rule change would be a market increase of 15% and a decrease of 15% ( *i.e.,* the valuation points would be ±3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, and 15%). 18 As with the current Pilot, a theoretical options pricing model would be used to derive position values at each valuation point for the purpose of determining the gain or loss. 19 17 These are the same ranges applied to options market makers under Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1a), which permits a broker-dealer when computing net capital to calculate securities haircuts on options and related positions using a portfolio margin methodology. *See* 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a(b)(1)(iv)(A); *see also* Letter from Michael Macchiaroli, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to Richard Lewandowski, Vice President, Regulatory Division, The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (Jan. 13, 2000). 18 This range also is consistent with Rule 15c3-1a. *See supra* note 17. 19 The pricing model would need to meet the requirements in Rule 15c3-1a. Currently, the only model that qualifies under Rule 15c3-1a is the OCC's Theoretical Intermarket Margining System (TIMS). The amount of margin (initial and maintenance) required with respect to a given portfolio would be the larger of:
(1)The greatest loss amount among the valuation point calculations; or
(2)the sum of $.375 for each option and future in the portfolio multiplied by the contract's or instrument's multiplier. The second computation establishes a minimum margin requirement to ensure that a certain level of margin is required from the customer in the event the greatest loss among the valuation points is *de minimis.* Finally, under the proposed rule change, member organizations would need to notify and receive approval from the Exchange prior to establishing a portfolio margin program for eligible customers. c. Margin Deficiency The proposed amendments would require a member organization to deduct from its net capital the amount of any portfolio margin maintenance call not met by the close of business of trade date plus one day (T+1). This condition would be different from the current requirement of T+3 and would apply to margin calls related to portfolios of all eligible products. NYSE member organizations would not be permitted to deduct any portfolio margin maintenance call amount from net capital in lieu of collecting the required margin from the customer. d. Waiver of $5.0 Million Equity Requirement The proposed amendments would permit customers that are not broker-dealers or members of a national futures exchange to effect transactions solely in security futures and listed single stock options without maintaining $5.0 million in equity as required under the Pilot for broad-based securities index products. 20 20 *See* proposed rule 431(g)(9)(A). e. Risk Disclosure Statement and Acknowledgement The Pilot requires a broker-dealer to provide a portfolio margin customer with a written risk disclosure statement at or prior to the initial opening of a portfolio margin account. This disclosure statement highlights the risks and describes the operation of a portfolio margin account. The disclosure statement also describes, among other things, eligibility requirements for opening a portfolio margin account, the instruments that are allowed in the account, and when deposits to meet margin and minimum equity requirements are due. Further, at or prior to the time a portfolio margin account is initially opened, the broker-dealer is required to obtain a signed acknowledgement concerning portfolio margining from the customer. Under the current Pilot, a separate acknowledgement is required for cross-margining. 21 21 “Cross-margining” refers to the inclusion of futures that are not securities in a portfolio as is permitted under the current Pilot for portfolios of broad-based securities index products. The proposed rule change amends the disclosure requirements under Rule 726 to incorporate the expanded list of eligible products in the Pilot and other changes contained in the proposed rule change. III. Summary of Comments Received and NYSE Response The Commission received a total of three comment letters to the proposed rule change. 22 The comments, in general, were supportive. One commenter stated that it “is strongly supportive of the NYSE's efforts to incorporate portfolio margining into Rule 431 and hopes the Commission will speedily approve amendments to Rule 431 to increase the scope of portfolio margining.” 23 Each commenter, however, recommended changes to specific provisions of the proposed rule change. 22 *See supra* note 6. 23 *See* SIA Letter. Two of the commenters stated that the list of eligible products should be expanded under the Pilot to include a broader range of assets including all listed and OTC equity securities. 24 Three commenters stated that operational and legal issues make it difficult to have separate accounts for portfolio margining and cross margining as required under the Pilot. 25 One commenter suggested that the Pilot should allow for portfolio margining to be done through a single account, rather than requiring that cross-margining be done through a separate account. 26 The NYSE's subsequent rule filing responds to these comments through further proposed amendments. 27 Specifically, in that expanded filing, the Exchange proposed eliminating the cross margin account and expanding the types of eligible products that can be included in a portfolio margin account. 28 In its response to comments, the Exchange also encouraged the Commission to adopt this subsequent proposed rule filing. 29 24 *See* SIA Letter and Citigroup Letter. 25 *See* SIA Letter; Citigroup Letter; and FIA Letter. 26 *See* SIA Letter. 27 *See* SR-NYSE-2006-13 (proposal to expand list of eligible products in the Pilot and eliminate the separate cross-margin account). *See supra* note 8. 28 *Id.* 29 *Id.; see also* NYSE Response. One commenter stated that the multiplier of $.375 should be changed to $.25 per contract to be more consistent with Appendix A to Rule 15c3-1. 30 The Exchange noted that it is concerned about the amount of potential leverage that can be created at each broker-dealer and believes that the higher minimum requirement would serve as an added cushion in the event of a severe market movement. Even though positions in the account are hedged, the Exchange noted that it is concerned about potential illiquidity in the market that could create sizeable gap risk in the event that both sides of a hedge cannot be closed out at the same time. 31 30 *See* SIA Letter. 17 CFR 240.15c3-1a. 31 *See* NYSE Response. One commenter also suggested that sophisticated member firms should be able to utilize proprietary models to estimate potential losses in determining portfolio margin requirements. 32 In response to this comment, the Exchange stated that it would like to gain additional experience with the use of such risk models before it could permit its member organizations to utilize these models for margining purposes. 33 32 *See* Citigroup Letter. 33 *See* NYSE Response. Finally, the Exchange stated that it will continue to work with the Commission staff and respective industry committees to address future enhancements to portfolio margining. 34 34 *See* NYSE Response. IV. Discussion and Commission Findings 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 exchange. 35 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 36 in that it is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposed portfolio margin rule change is intended to promote greater reasonableness, accuracy and efficiency with respect to Exchange margin requirements and will better align margin requirements with the actual risk of hedged positions. Moreover, the Commission notes that approving the proposed rule change would be consistent with the Federal Reserve Board's 1998 amendments to Regulation T, which sought to advance the use of portfolio margining. 35 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 37 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2005-93), is approved on a pilot basis to expire on July 31, 2007. 37 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 38 38 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11312 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54126; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by the NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending Rules To Mandate Listed Companies Become Eligible To Participate in a Direct Registration System July 11, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on June 19, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) 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 NYSE Arca. 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 NYSE Arca, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), proposes to amend its rules to mandate that all listed companies become eligible to participate in a Direct Registration System (“DRS”) administered by a clearing agency registered under section 17A of the Act. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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 NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified portions of the text of the summaries prepared by the NYSE Arca.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
(1)Purpose NYSE Arca, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, proposes to amend its rules to mandate that all listed companies become eligible to participate in DRS administered by a clearing agency registered under section 17A of the Act. DRS is a system that allows an investor to establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position in eligible securities on the books of the issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer agent and the broker-dealer. 3 DRS, therefore, allows an investor to have eligible securities registered in her name without having a certificate issued to her and to electronically transfer, thereby eliminating the risk and delays associated with the use of certificates, her securities to her broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction. 3 Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a DRS is The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). For a description of DRS and the DRS facilities administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862 (September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No. SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile Modification System). In 2004, the Commission issued a concept release, Securities Transaction Settlement, discussing whether self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) that list securities should adopt rules to require issuers to participate in DRS. 4 Subsequently, representations of the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market, the American Stock Exchange, DTC, and the Securities Industry Association entered into discussions that resulted in the decision to propose common rules that would require listed companies to become eligible to participate in DRS but would not require listed companies to participate in DRS. 5 There is an expectation that requiring listed companies to be eligible to participate in DRS will accelerate the trend already evident among companies to participate in DRS. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04]. 5 The Commission has published notices for proposed rule changes filed by the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, and the American Stock Exchange LLC that would require certain listed companies securities become DRS eligible. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53912 (May 31, 2006), 71 FR 33030 (June 7, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 53913 (May 31, 2006), 71 FR 33024 (June 7, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-008]; and 53911 (May 31, 2006), 71 FR 33009 (June 7, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]. Under the proposed rule change, NYSE Arca will impose its DRS eligibility requirement pursuant to proposed new Rule 7.62(c). 6 The proposed new rule does not require that securities listed for trading on NYSE Arca must be eligible for the DRS. Rather it requires listed companies' securities be eligible for a direct registration system operated by a clearing agency, as defined in section 3(a)(23) of the Act, 7 that is registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, while the DRS operated by DTC is currently the only DRS facility meeting the definition, proposed new Rule 7.62(c) could provide issuers with the option of using another qualified DRS if one should exist in the future. 6 The exact text of the NYSE Arca prepared rule change is set forth in its filing, which can be found at *http://www.nysearca.com/regulation/filings.* 7 15 U.S.C. 78a. Currently, in order to make a security DRS-eligible in DRS operated by DTC, the issuer must have a transfer agent which is a DTC DRS Limited Participant. 8 NYSE Arca understands that the larger transfer agents serving NYSE Arca's listed company community are already eligible to participate in DRS. However, taking into account the diversity of the issuers and transfer agents across all the markets that will be required to make securities eligible for DRS and facilitate DRS eligibility, some transfer agents may need to take steps to become eligible to participate in DRS, and some issuers may decide to change their transfer agent. In addition, NYSE Arca has been notified that some issuers may need to amend their certificates of incorporation or their by-laws before they can make their securities DRS eligible. 8 DTC's rules require that a transfer agent (including an issuer acting as its own transfer agent) acting for a company issuing securities in DRS must be a DRS Limited Participant. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR7-DTC-96-15]. To allow sufficient time for any such necessary actions, NYSE Arca proposes to impose the DRS eligibility requirement in two steps. Companies listing for the first time should have greater flexibility to conform to the eligibility requirements; therefore, proposed Rule 7.62(c) would require all securities initially listing on NYSE Arca on or after January 1, 2007, be eligible for DRS at the time of listing. This provision does not extend to securities of companies
(i)which already have securities listed on the NYSE Arca,
(ii)which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another registered securities exchange in the U.S., or
(iii)which are specifically permitted under NYSE Arca's rules to be and which are book-entry only. On and after January 1, 2008, all securities listed on the NYSE Arca will be required to be eligible for DRS except those securities which are specifically permitted under NYSE Arca rules to be and which are book-entry only. The securities which NYSE Arca permits to be book-entry only include all debt securities, securities listed or traded pursuant to Rule 5.2(j), securities listed or traded pursuant to Rule 8, and nonconvertible stock. 9 9 NYSE Arca's Rule 5(j) pertains to, among other things, equity linked notes, investment company units, index-linked exchangeable notes, equity gold shares, index-linked securities. Rule 8 pertains to currency and index warrants.
(2)Statutory Basis The statutory basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange are 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 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 NYSE Arca believes that the proposed new Rule 7.62(c) is consistent with its obligations under section 6(b)(5) because issuers will be encouraged to use DRS, which should facilitate reducing the use of securities certificates and in turn should promote more efficient clearing and settling of securities transactions. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The NYSE Arca 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 NYSE Arca 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 Within thirty-five 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 ninety 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-2006-29 in the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-31. 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 the NYSE Arca and on the NYSE Arca's Web site, *http://www.nysearca.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-NYSEArca-2006-31 and should be submitted on or before August 8, 2006. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11313 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 09/79-0455] Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P., 2200 Sand Hill Road, Suite 160, Menlo Park, CA 94025, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Sylantro Systems Corporation, 910 East Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses and for general corporate purposes. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Argo Global Capital and Schrier Holdings III, both Associates of Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P., own more than ten percent of Sylantro Systems Corporation. Therefore, Sylantro Systems Corporation, is considered an Associate of Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P., as defined at 13 CFR 107.50 of the SBIC Regulations. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Dated: June 28, 2006. Jaime Guzman-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E6-11315 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10528] California Disaster #CA-00034 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of California Disaster #CA-00034 dated July 6, 2006. *Incident:* Fishery Resource Disaster. *Incident Period:* January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. *Effective Date:* July 6, 2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the fishery resource disaster under 308(b) of Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, as amended, to help West Coast fishing communities in Oregon and California as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma. *Contiguous Counties:* California: Alameda, Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Lake, Napa, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Solano, Tehama, Trinity. Oregon: Curry, Josephine. The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000. The number assigned is 10528 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-11317 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10527] Oregon Disaster #OR-00013 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of Oregon Disaster #OR-00013 dated July 6, 2006. *Incident:* Fishery Resource Disaster. *Incident Period:* January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. *Effective Date:* July 6, 2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the fishery resource disaster under 308(b) of Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, as amended, to help West Coast fishing communities in Oregon and California as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook. *Contiguous Counties:* Oregon: Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Deschutes, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Linn, Polk, Washington, Yamhill. California: Del Norte. The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000. The number assigned is 10527 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-11318 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10515 and #10516] Pennsylvania Disaster Number PA-00004 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 3. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1649-DR), dated July 4, 2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides. *Incident Period:* June 23, 2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* July 7, 2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* September 5, 2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* April 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Pennsylvania, dated July 4, 2006 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Dauphin, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Montour, Northumberland. *Contiguous Counties:* Pennsylvania: Snyder, Union, York. Maryland: Harford. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-11314 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10515 and #10516] Pennsylvania Disaster Number PA-00004 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1649-DR), dated July 4, 2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides. *Incident Period:* June 23, 2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* July 6, 2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* September 5, 2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* April 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, dated July 4, 2006 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Montgomery, Franklin, Bucks, Columbia, Northampton. *Contiguous Counties:* Maryland: Frederick, Washington. New Jersey: Burlington, Hunterdon, Mercer. Pennsylvania: Adams, Cumberland, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lycoming, Montour, Perry, Philadelphia. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002 and 59008) Roger B. Garland, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-11316 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5467] Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of State and the Council on Accreditation Regarding Performance of Duties as an Accrediting Entity Under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) is the lead Federal agency for implementation of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). Among other things, the IAA gives the Secretary of State responsibility for the accreditation of agencies and approval of persons to provide adoption services under the Convention. The IAA requires the Department to enter into agreements with one or more qualified entities under which such entities will perform the tasks of accrediting agencies and approving persons, monitoring compliance of such agencies and persons with applicable requirements, and other related duties set forth in section 202(b) of the IAA. This notice is to inform the public that on July 12, 2006, the Department exercised its authority under the IAA and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)with the Council on Accreditation under which the Department designated the Council on Accreditation as an accrediting entity. In its role as an accrediting entity, the Council on Accreditation will be accrediting or approving qualified agencies and persons throughout the United States in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in 22 CFR Part 96 to enable them to provide adoption services in cases subject to the Convention once the Convention enters into force for the United States. The Department will monitor the performance of the Council on Accreditation and approve fees charged by it as an accrediting entity. The text of the MOA, signed on July 12, 2006 by Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State and signed on July 6, 2006 by Richard Klarberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council on Accreditation, is included at the end of this Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mikiko Stebbing at 202-736-9086. Hearing or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)by contacting the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department, pursuant to section 202(a) of the IAA, must enter into an agreement with at least one qualified entity and designate it as an accrediting entity. Accrediting entities may be
(1)Nonprofit private entities with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services; or
(2)State adoption licensing bodies that have expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services and that accredit only agencies located in that State. Both nonprofit accrediting entities and state accrediting entities must meet any other criteria that the Department may by regulation establish. The Council on Accreditation is a nonprofit private entity with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services throughout the United States. The final rule on accreditation of agencies and approval of persons (22 CFR Part 96) was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 8064-8066, February 15, 2006). The final rule contains the Department's additional criteria for designation as an accrediting entity. The final rule also establishes the regulatory framework for the accreditation and approval function and provides the standards that the designated accrediting entities will follow in accrediting or approving adoption service providers. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Council on Accreditation Parties and Purpose of the Agreement The Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Department) and the Council on Accreditation (COA), with its principal office located at 120 Wall Street, 11th floor, New York, NY 10005, hereinafter the “Parties”, are entering into this agreement for the purpose of designating COA as an accrediting entity under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-279 and 22 CFR Part 96. Authorities The Department enters into this agreement pursuant to Sections 202 and 204 of the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, and Delegation of Authority 261. COA has full authority to enter into this MOA pursuant to a resolution passed by its Board of Trustees dated June 30, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, which resolution authorizes Richard Klarberg to execute this agreement on behalf of COA. Definitions For purposes of this memorandum of agreement, terms used here that are defined in 22 CFR 96.2 shall have the same meaning as they have in 22 CFR 96.2. In addition, the terms “transitional application deadline”
(TAD)and “date of initial accreditation or approval”
(DIAA)shall have the meaning given them in 22 CFR 96.19 and “uniform notification date”
(UND)shall have the meaning given it in 22 CFR 96.58. The Parties *agree as follows:* Article 1—Designation of the Accrediting Entity The Department hereby designates COA as an accrediting entity and thereby authorizes it to accredit (including temporarily accredit) agencies and approve persons to provide adoption services in Convention adoption cases, in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in 22 CFR Part 96, and to perform all of the accrediting entity functions set forth in 22 CFR 96.7(a). Article 2—Accreditation Responsibilities and Duties of the Accrediting Entity
(1)COA agrees to perform all accrediting entity functions set forth in 22 CFR 96.7(a) and to perform its functions in accordance with the Convention, the IAA, Part 96 of 22 CFR and any other applicable regulations, and as additionally specified in this agreement. In performing these functions, COA will operate under policy direction from the Department regarding U.S. obligations under the Convention and regarding the functions and responsibilities of an accrediting entity.
(2)COA will take appropriate staffing, funding, and other measures to allow it to carry out all of its functions and fulfill all of its responsibilities, and will use the adoptions tracking system and the Hague complaint registry (ATS/HCR) as directed by the Department, including by updating required data fields in a timely fashion.
(3)In carrying out its accrediting entity functions COA will:
(a)Prepare to accept applications by the TAD by expending its own funds and other resources for materials development, staff training, travel and meeting attendance in advance of receiving any fees for its services as an accrediting entity;
(b)Make decisions on accreditation and approval in accordance with the procedures set forth in 22 CFR Part 96 and using only the standards in subpart F of 22 CFR Part 96 and the substantial compliance weighting system approved by the Department pursuant to para. 5, Article 3 below;
(c)Make decisions on temporary accreditation in accordance with the procedures and standards in subpart N of 22 CFR Part 96 and the procedures presented to the Department pursuant to para. 3, Article 3 below;
(d)Charge applicants for accreditation, approval, or temporary accreditation only fees approved by the Department pursuant to para. 4, Article 3 below;
(e)Consistent with 22 CFR 96.19 and 96.97, use its best efforts to evaluate and decide by the DIAA all applications for accreditation, temporary accreditation, or approval that were submitted by the TAD;
(f)Review complaints, including complaints regarding conduct alleged to have occurred abroad, in accordance with subpart J of 22 CFR Part 96 and the additional procedures approved by the Department pursuant to paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) in Article 3, below. COA will exercise its discretion in determining which methods are most appropriate to review complaints regarding conduct alleged to have occurred abroad.
(g)Take adverse actions against accredited agencies, temporarily accredited agencies, and approved persons in accordance with subparts K and N of 22 CFR Part 96, and cooperate with the Department in any case in which the Department considers exercising its adverse action authorities because the accrediting entity has failed or refused after consultation with the Department to take what the Department considers to be appropriate enforcement action.
(h)Assume full responsibility for defending adverse actions in court proceedings, if challenged by the adoption service provider or the adoption service provider's board or officers;
(i)Refer an adoption service provider to the Department for debarment if, but only if, it concludes after investigation that the adoption service provider's conduct meets the standards for action by the Secretary set out in 22 CFR 96.85;
(j)Promptly report any change in the accreditation (including temporary accreditation) or approval status of an adoption service provider to the relevant state licensing authority.
(k)Maintain and use only the required procedures approved by the Department and those procedures presented to the Department pursuant to Article 3 of this agreement whenever they apply. Article 3—Preparatory Tasks (Tasks Preceding the Transitional Application Deadline)
(1)*Accreditation Materials and Training:* In coordination with the Department and any other designated accrediting entities, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, COA will:
(a)Develop forms, training materials, and evaluation practices;
(b)Determine whether joint training of evaluators or other personnel is practical, and, if so, assist in conducting or participate in any joint training sessions;
(c)Develop explanatory guidance to assist applicants for accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval in achieving substantial compliance with the applicable standards.
(2)*Development of Internal Review Procedure:* COA will develop and present to the Department for approval, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, procedures that it will maintain and use to determine whether to terminate adverse actions against an accredited agency or approved person on the grounds that the deficiencies necessitating the adverse action have been corrected.
(3)*Development of Other Procedures:* COA will develop and present to the Department, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, procedures that it will maintain and use:
(a)To evaluate whether a candidate for temporary accreditation meets the applicable eligibility requirements set forth in 22 CFR 96.96;
(b)To carry out its annual monitoring duties;
(c)To review thoroughly complaints or information referred to it through the Hague Complaint Registry or from the Department directly, including procedures for obtaining complete and accurate information about conduct alleged to have occurred abroad;
(d)To review complaints that it receives about its own actions as an accrediting entity for Hague adoption service providers;
(e)To make the public disclosures required by 22 CFR 96.91; and
(f)To ensure the reasonableness of charges for the travel and maintenance of its site evaluators, such as for travel, meals and accommodations, which charges shall be in addition to the fees charged under 22 CFR 96.8.
(4)*Fee Schedule Development:*
(a)COA will develop a fee schedule for accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval services that meets the requirements of 22 CFR 96.8. Fees will be set based on the principle of recovering no more than the full cost, as defined in OMB Circular A-25 paragraph 6(d)(1), of accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval services. COA will submit a fee schedule developed using this methodology together with comprehensive documentation justifying the proposed fees to the Department for approval by a date agreed by the Parties.
(b)The approved fee schedule can be amended with the approval of the Department.
(5)*Substantial Compliance Weighting Systems Development:*
(a)COA will develop a substantial compliance weighting system as described in 22 CFR 96.27, and will submit it to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
(b)COA will develop a separate substantial compliance weighting system to be used in evaluating temporarily accredited agencies that incorporates the performance standards in 22 CFR 96.104 and will submit it to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
(c)In developing the systems described in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section, COA will coordinate with any other accrediting entities, and consult with the Department to ensure consistency between the systems used by accrediting entities. These systems can be amended with the approval of the Department. Article 4—Initial Accreditation (Including Temporary Accreditation) and Approval Tasks
(1)The Department will consult with COA and all other accrediting entities before establishing the transitional application deadline (TAD), the uniform notification date (UND), and the deadline for initial accreditation or approval (DIAA).
(2)Within an agreed number of days following the TAD, COA will make public the names and addresses of agencies and persons that have applied to be accredited (including temporarily accredited) or approved, provide a mechanism for the public to comment on applicants, and consider comments received from the public in its decisions on applicants. With respect to additional applications received prior to entry into force of the Convention, COA will make the names of such applicants public within an agreed number of days following receipt. COA will consider any public comments in its decisions on the additional applicants.
(3)In conformity with 22 CFR 96.58, COA will not release its accreditation (including temporary accreditation) and approval decisions prior to the UND. COA will prepare the list of decisions to be announced on the UND and transmit the information as directed by the Department. COA will immediately notify the Department of any corrections, so that the Department may rely upon this list in compiling the list of initially accredited and approved adoption service providers that it will deposit with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Article 5—Data Collection, Reporting and Records
(1)*Adoptions Tracking System/Hague Complaint Registry (ATS/HCR):*
(a)COA will maintain and fund a computer and internet connection for use with the ATS/HCR that meets system requirements set by the Department;
(b)The Department will provide software or access tokens needed by individuals for secure access to the ATS/HCR and facilitate any necessary training in use of the ATS/HCR;
(2)*Annual Report:* COA will report on dates agreed upon by the Parties, in a mutually agreed upon format, the information required in 22 CFR 96.93 as provided in that section through ATS/HCR.
(3)*Additional Reporting:* COA will provide any additional status reports or data as reasonably required by the Department, and in a mutually agreed upon format.
(4)*Accrediting Entity Records:* COA will retain all records related to its accreditation functions and responsibilities in printed or electronic form in accordance with the electronic recordkeeping policy that applies to Federal acquisition contracts under Federal Acquisition Regulation 4.703 for a minimum of six years after their creation, or until any litigation, claim or audit related to the records filed or noticed within the six year period is finally terminated, whichever is longer. Article 6—Department Oversight and Monitoring
(1)*To facilitate oversight and monitoring by the Department, COA will:*
(a)Provide copies of its forms and other materials to the Department and give Department personnel the opportunity to participate in any training sessions for its evaluators or other personnel;
(b)Allow the Department to inspect all records relating to its accreditation functions and responsibilities and provide to the Department copies of such records as requested or required for oversight, including to evaluate renewal or maintenance of the accrediting entity's designation, and for purposes of transferring adoption service providers to another accrediting entity;
(c)Submit to the Department by a date agreed upon by the Parties an annual declaration signed by the President and Chief Executive Officer confirming that COA is complying with the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, any other applicable regulations, and this agreement in carrying out its functions and responsibilities;
(d)Make appropriate senior-level officers available to attend a yearly performance review meeting with the Department;
(e)Immediately report to the Department events which have a significant impact on its ability to perform its functions and responsibilities as an accrediting entity, including financial difficulties, changes in key personnel or other staffing issues, legal or disciplinary actions against the organization, and conflicts of interest;
(f)Notify the Department of any requests for information relating to its role as an accrediting entity under the IAA or Department functions or responsibilities that it receives from Central Authorities of other Hague signatories, or any other foreign government authorities (except for routine requests concerning accreditation, temporary accreditation, or approval status or other information publicly available under subpart M of Part 96) , and consult with the Department before releasing such information;
(g)Consult immediately with the Department about any issue or event that may affect compliance with the IAA or U.S. compliance with obligations under the Convention.
(2)*Departmental Approval Procedures:* In all instances in which the Department must approve a policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure before COA can bring it into effect or amend it, COA will submit the policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure or amendment in writing to the Department's AE Liaison via email where possible. The AE Liaison will be responsible for coordinating the Department's approval process and arranging any necessary meetings or telephone conferences with COA. Formal approval by the Department will be conveyed in writing by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services or her or his designee.
(3)*Suspension or Cancellation:* When the Department is considering suspension or cancellation of COA's designation:
(a)The Department will notify COA in writing of the identified deficiencies in its performance and the time period in which the Department expects correction of the deficiencies;
(b)COA will respond in writing to either explain the actions that it has taken or plans to take to correct the deficiencies or to demonstrate that the Department's concerns are unfounded within 10 business days;
(c)Upon request, the Department will also meet with the accrediting entity by teleconference or in person;
(d)If the Department, in its sole discretion, is not satisfied with the actions or explanation of COA, it will notify COA in writing of its decision to suspend or cancel COA's designation and this agreement;
(e)COA will stop or suspend its actions as an accrediting entity as directed by the Department in the notice of suspension or cancellation, and cooperate with any Departmental instructions in order to transfer adoption service providers it accredits (including temporarily accredits) or approves to another accrediting entity, including by transferring fees collected by COA for services not yet performed.
(4)By a date agreed upon by the Parties, the Parties will agree upon procedures for handling complaints against the accrediting entity received by the Department or referred to the Department because the complainant was not satisfied with the accrediting entity's resolution of the complaint. These complaint procedures may be incorporated into the Department's general procedures for handling instances in which the Department is considering whether a deficiency in the accrediting entity's performance may warrant suspension or cancellation of its designation. Article 7—Other Issues Agreed by the Parties
(1)*Conflict of interest provisions:*
(a)COA shall disclose to the Department the name of any organization of which it is a member that also has as members intercountry adoption service providers. COA shall demonstrate to the Department that it has procedures in place to prevent any such membership from influencing its actions as an accrediting entity and shall maintain and use these procedures.
(b)COA shall identify for the Department all members of its board of directors or other governing body, employees, and site evaluators who also serve as officers, directors, employees, or owners of adoption service providers. COA shall demonstrate it has procedures in place to ensure that any such relationships will not influence any accreditation (including temporary accreditation) or approval decisions, and shall maintain and use these procedures.
(c)COA shall disclose to the Department any other situation or circumstance that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
(2)*Liability:* COA agrees to maintain sufficient resources to defend challenges to its actions as an accrediting entity, including by maintaining adequate liability insurance for its actions as an accrediting entity brought by agencies and/or persons seeking to be accredited or approved or who are accredited or approved, and to inform the Department immediately of any events that may affect its ability to defend itself (e.g., change in or loss of insurance coverage, change in relevant state law). COA agrees that it will consult with the Department immediately if it becomes aware of any other legal proceedings related to its acts as an accrediting entity, or of any legal proceedings not related to its acts as an accrediting entity that may threaten its ability to continue to function as an accrediting entity. Article 8—Liaison Between the Department and the Accrediting Entity
(1)COA's principal point of contact for communications relating to its functions and duties as an accrediting entity will be the Standards Associate. The Department's principal point of contact for communication is the Accrediting Entity Liaison officer in the Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
(2)The parties will keep each other currently informed in writing of the names and contact information for their principal points of contact. As of the signing of this Agreement, the respective principal points of contact are as set forth in Attachment 1. Article 9—Certifications and Assurances
(1)COA certifies that it will comply with all requirements of applicable State and Federal law. Article 10—Agreement, Scope, and Period of Performance
(1)*Scope:*
(a)This agreement is not intended to have any effect on any activities of COA that are not related to its functions as an accrediting entity for adoption service providers providing adoption services in intercountry adoptions under the Hague Convention.
(b)Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to be a commitment or obligation to provide any Federal funds. The Department, consistent with the IAA, may not provide any funds to the accrediting entity for the performance of accreditation and approval functions.
(c)All accrediting entity functions and responsibilities authorized by this agreement are to occur only during the duration of this agreement.
(d)Nothing in this agreement shall release COA from any legal requirements or responsibilities imposed on the accrediting entity by the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, or any other applicable laws or regulations.
(2)Duration: COA's designation as an accrediting entity and this agreement shall remain in effect for 5 years from signature, unless terminated earlier by the Department in conjunction with the suspension or cancellation of the designation of COA. The Parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the designation of the accrediting entity and the duration of this agreement. If either Party does not wish to renew the agreement, it must provide written notice no less than one year prior to the termination date, and the Parties will consult to establish a mutually agreed schedule to transfer adoption service providers to another accrediting entity, including by transferring a reasonable allocation of collected fees for the remainder of the accreditation or approval period of such adoption service providers.
(3)Changed Circumstances: If unforeseen circumstances arise that will render COA unable to continue to perform its duties as an Accrediting Entity, COA will immediately inform the Department of State. The Parties will consult and make an effort to find a solution that will enable COA to continue to perform until the end of the contract period. If no such solution can be reached, the contract may be terminated on a mutually agreed date or, if mutual agreement can not be reached, on not less than 14 months written notice from COA.
(4)Severability: To the extent that the Department determines, within its reasonable discretion, that any provision of this agreement is inconsistent with the Convention, the IAA, the regulations implementing the IAA or any other provision of law, that provision of the agreement shall be considered null and void and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in full force and effect as if the offending portion had not been a part of it.
(5)Entirety of Agreement: This agreement is the entire agreement of the Parties and may be modified only upon written agreement of the Parties. Attachment 1—Resolution Unanimously Adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Council on Accreditation June 30, 2006. “Be it resolved, that Richard Klarberg is authorized to execute a Memorandum of Agreement by and between the Council on Accreditation
(COA)and the Department of State, Bureau of Consular affairs pursuant to which COA is designated as an accrediting entity under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-279 and 22 C.F.R. Part 96.” Dated: July 12, 2006. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-11362 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection Activity, Request for Comments; Final Rule Amending the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve a current information collection. This information is needed to identify and track regulated entities required to implement antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention programs as well as those companies that opt to implement programs. A notice for this collection appeared in the **Federal Register** on July 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 133, pgs. 39385-39386 with two incorrect titles attached to it: “Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operation” and “FAA Research and Development Grants”. The correct title is “Final Rule Amending the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation”. DATES: Please submit comments by September 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on
(202)267-9895, or by e-mail at: *Carla.mauney@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)*Title:* Final Rule Amending the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation. *Type of Request:* Revision of an approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2120-0685. *Forms(s):* There are no FAA forms associated with this collection. *Affected Public:* A total of 7240 Respondents. *Frequency:* The information is collected as needed. *Estimated Average Burden Per Response:* Approximately 10 minutes per response. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* An estimated 1,066 annually. *Abstract:* This information is needed to identify and track regulated required to implement anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention programs as well as those companies that opt to implement programs. The respondents are aviation employees operating under 14 CFR parts 121, 135, and 145, Air traffic control facilities not operated by the FAA or the U.S. military, operators as defined in 14 CFR 135(c), and certain contractors. *Addresses:* Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 1033, Federal Aviation Administration, Information Systems and Technology Services Staff, ABA-20, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Carla Mauney, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Information Systems and Technology Services Staff, ABA-20. [FR Doc. 06-6284 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 22
Traces to 22 documents
U.S. Code
- Records and reports§ 78q
- National market system for securities; securities information processors§ 78k–1
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Margin requirements§ 78g
- Short title§ 78a
CFR
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Authority, purpose, and scope.§ 220.1
- Customer margin requirements for security futures---authority, purpose, interpretation, and scope.§ 242.400
- Financings which constitute conflicts of interest.§ 107.730
- Definition of terms.§ 107.50
- Definitions.§ 96.2
- First-time application procedures for accreditation and approval.§ 96.19
- Notification of accreditation and approval decisions.§ 96.58
- Authorities and responsibilities of an accrediting entity.§ 96.7
- Temporary and permanent debarment by the Secretary.§ 96.85
- Scope.§ 96.91
- Fees charged by accrediting entities.§ 96.8
- Substantive criteria for evaluating applicants for accreditation or approval.§ 96.27
- Dissemination of information to the public about complaints against accredited agencies and approved persons.§ 96.93
13 references not yet in our index
- 17 CFR 240.17
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 228 F.3d 865
- 360 F.3d 404
- 190 F.3d 269
- Pub. L. 106-554
- 114 Stat. 2763
- 17 CFR 240.15
- 22 CFR 96
- Pub. L. 106-279
- 22 CFR 96.96
- 22 CFR 96.104
- 14 CFR 135(c)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Cites 35 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources