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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-07-26 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment

15,985 words·~73 min read·/register/2006/07/26/06-6503·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment No. 275 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-66 and Amendment No. 156 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-73 issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications
(TSs)and licenses for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2) located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance. The amendments modified the TSs and licenses to increase the maximum authorized rated thermal power from 2689 megawatts thermal
(MWt)to 2900 MWt for each unit. Additionally, the amendments approved full implementation of an alternative source term in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.67, using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants.” The amendments also approved deletion of the power range neutron-flux high-negative rate trip, removal of the boron injection tank boron concentration and renaming the boron injection flow path for BVPS-1, the addition of a footnote to Table 3.3-3 for BVPS-1, and correction of an inconsistency regarding a referenced permissive for BVPS-1. The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with this action was published in the **Federal Register** on August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48443). The supplemental letters dated February 23, May 26, June 14, July 8 and 28, August 26, September 6, October 7, 28, and 31, November 8, 18, and 21, December 2, 6, 9, 16, and 30, 2005, and January 25, February 14 and 22, March 10 and 29, May 12, and July 6, 2006, provided additional clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the initial application as published in the **Federal Register** . No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice. The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to the action and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has concluded that the issuance of the amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (71 FR 40162). For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the application for amendment dated October 4, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated February 23, May 26, June 14, July 8 and 28, August 26, September 6, October 7, 28, and 31, November 8, 18, and 21, December 2, 6, 9, 16, and 30, 2005, and January 25, February 14 and 22, March 10 and 29, May 12, and July 6, 2006,
(2)Amendment No. 275 to License No. DPR-66,
(3)Amendment No. 156 to License No. NPF-73,
(4)the Commission's related Safety Evaluation, and
(5)the Commission's Environmental Assessment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-11918 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-32959] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09-10672-03, for Unrestricted Release of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Buildings 15, 16 and 17 in Gulf Breeze, FL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hammann, Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406; telephone
(610)337-5399; fax number
(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *sth2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09-10672-03. This license is held by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the Licensee), for its Gulf Ecology Division Facility, located at 1 Sabine Island Drive in Gulf Breeze, Florida (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Buildings 15, 16 and 17, which are part of the Facility, for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated March 14, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's March 14, 2006, license amendment request resulting in release of Buildings 15, 16 and 17 for unrestricted use. License No. 09-10672-03 was issued on November 2, 1992, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. License No. 09-10672-03 superceded License No. 09-10672-02 which was issued in 1965 for this Facility. This license authorized the Licensee to use sealed and unsealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods. Buildings 15, 16 and 17 have a total of 2,690 square feet and consist of office space, laboratories, and storage space. The Buildings are located in a mixed residential/commercial area. The Licensee has not conducted licensed activities in Buildings 15, 16 and 17 since 1997. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the condition of the Buildings, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of Buildings 15, 16 and 17 and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at Buildings 15, 16 and 17 and seeks the unrestricted use of this portion of the Facility. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted in Buildings 15, 16 and 17 shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of Buildings 15, 16 and 17 affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on March 5, 2006. This survey covered Buildings 15, 16 and 17. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated March 14, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the (ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material in Buildings 15, 16 and 17. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Buildings. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of Buildings 15, 16 and 17 for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee will continue to perform licensed activities at other parts of the Gulf Ecology Division Facility, and must ensure that the decommissioned area does not become recontaminated. Before the license can be terminated, the Licensee will be required to show that the entire Facility, including previously-released areas, complies with the radiological criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity in Buildings 15, 16 and 17, and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Buildings 15, 16 and 17 meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control for review on April 4, 2006. On April 4, 2006, Florida Bureau of Radiation Control responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Amendment request and Final Status Survey Results for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida, dated March 14, 2006 [ADAMS Accession No. ML060810415]; 2. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;” 3. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 4. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” 5. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities”. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 18th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-11919 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Executive Office of the President; Acquisition Advisory Panel; Notification of Upcoming Meetings of the Acquisition Advisory Panel AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meetings. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget announces one meeting of the Acquisition Advisory Panel (AAP or “Panel”) established in accordance with the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. DATES: There is one *conditional* meeting announced in this **Federal Register** Notice. A Public meeting of the Panel will be held on August 10, 2006 if the Panel does not complete its work at the previously published public meeting on July 25, 2006. If held, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern Time and end no later than 5 p.m. The public is urged to call
(202)208-7279 after 5 p.m. the work day before this meeting for a pre-recorded message to learn if the meeting is cancelled. The public may also visit the Panel's Web site the morning of the meeting for cancellation messages ( *http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html* ). ADDRESSES: The August 10, 2006 meeting, if held, will be at the new FDIC Building, 3501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA in the new auditorium Room C3050D. This facility is 1/4 block off of the orange line metro stop for Virginia Square. The public is asked to pre-register one week in advance of the meeting due to security and/or seating limitations (see below for information on pre-registration). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public wishing further information concerning these meetings or the Panel itself, or to pre-register for the meeting, should contact Ms. Laura Auletta, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at: *laura.auletta@gsa.gov,* phone/voice mail
(202)208-7279, or mail at: General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4006, Washington, DC 20405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(a)*Background:* The purpose of the Panel is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Congress pursuant to Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. The Panel's statutory charter is to review Federal contracting laws, regulations, and governmentwide policies, including the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and governmentwide contracts. Interested parties are invited to attend the meeting. *Meeting* —The focus of this meeting will be discussions of and voting on any remaining working group findings and recommendations from selected working groups, established at the February 28, 2005 and May 17, 2005 public meetings of the AAP (see *http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html* for a list of working groups).
(b)*Posting of Draft Reports:* Members of the public are encouraged to regularly visit the Panel's Web site for draft reports. Currently, the working groups are staggering the posting of various sections of their draft reports at *http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html* under the link for “Working Group Reports.” The most recent posting is from the Commercial Practices Working Group. The public is encouraged to submit written comments on any and all draft reports.
(c)*Adopted Recommendations:* The Panel has adopted recommendations presented by the Small Business, Interagency Contracting, and Performance-Based Acquisition Working Groups. While additional recommendations from some of these working groups are likely, the public is encouraged to review and comment on the recommendations adopted by the Panel to date by going to *http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html* and selecting the link for “Adopted Recommendations.”
(d)*Availability of Meeting Materials:* Please see the Panel's Web site for any available materials, including draft agendas and minutes. Questions/issues of particular interest to the Panel are also available to the public on this Web site on its front page, including “Questions for Government Buying Agencies,” “Questions for Contractors that Sell Commercial Goods or Services to the Government,” “Questions for Commercial Organizations,” and an issue raised by one Panel member regarding the rules of interpretation and performance of contracts and liabilities of the parties entitled “Revised Commercial Practices Proposal for Public Comment.” The Panel encourages the public to address any of these questions/issues in written statements to the Panel.
(e)*Procedures for Providing Public Comments:* It is the policy of the Panel to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The Panel Staff expects that public statements presented orally or in writing will be focused on the Panel's statutory charter and working group topics, and not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements, and that comments will be relevant to the issues under discussion. *Written Comments:* Written comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information given in this FR Notice in one of the following formats (Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files, in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). Please note: Because the Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, up to and including being posted on the Panel's Web site.
(f)*Meeting Accommodations:* Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact Ms. Auletta at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Laura Auletta, Designated Federal Officer (Executive Director), Acquisition Advisory Panel. [FR Doc. E6-11930 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-27421; File No. 812-13243] AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, et al.; Notice of Application July 20, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application for an amended order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“Act”), granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. Applicants: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (“AXA Equitable”), AXA Life and Annuity Company (“AXA Life and Annuity,” and together with AXA Equitable, “the Company”), Separate Account No. 45 of AXA Equitable, Separate Account No. 49 of AXA Equitable (“SA 49”), Separate Account VA of AXA Life and Annuity (the foregoing separate accounts each an “Account,” and collectively, the “Accounts”), AXA Advisors, LLC, and AXA Distributors, LLC (collectively, “Applicants”). Summary of Application: Applicants seek an order to amend an Existing Order (defined below) to grant exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit Applicants to recapture certain credits applied to contributions made under certain amended deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates (“credits”), described herein, including certain amended certificate data pages and endorsements, that AXA Equitable will issue through the Accounts (the “2006 Amended Contracts”), and under contracts and certificates, including certain certificate data pages and endorsements, that AXA Equitable may issue in the future through the Accounts, and any other separate accounts of AXA Equitable or AXA Life and Annuity (collectively, “Future Accounts”) that are substantially similar in all material respects to the 2006 Amended Contracts (the “Future Contracts”). Applicants also request that the order being sought extend to “Equitable Broker-Dealers,” as defined in the applications for the Existing Order (defined below) (“Prior Applications”). 1 1 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. Nos. IC-23774 (Apr. 7, 1999) (File No. 812-11388), 23889 (July 2, 1999) (File No. 812-11662), 24963 (April 26, 2001) (File No. 812-12392), and 26170 (August 26, 2003) (File No. 812-13010). Filing Date: The application was filed on October 24, 2005, and amended and restated applications were filed on March 29, 2006, and July 11, 2006. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 18, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the requester's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104, Attn: Dodie Kent, Esq., copy to Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20001, Attn: Christopher E. Palmer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonny Oh, Staff Attorney, or Zandra Bailes, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management at
(202)551-6795. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549 (tel.
(202)551-8090). Applicants' Representations 1. On May 3, 1999, the Commission issued an order (“May 1999 Order”) 2 exempting certain transactions of Applicants from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The May 1999 Order specifically permits the recapture, under specified circumstances, of certain 3% Credits applied to contributions made under the Contracts or the Future Contracts as defined in the application for the May 1999 Order. Specifically, the May 1999 Order permits recapture of Credits if the Contract is returned during the free look period or if contributions are made within three years of annuitization. 2 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-23822 (May 3, 1999) (File No. 812-11388). 2. On July 28, 1999, the Commission issued an order of exemption amending the May 1999 Order (“July 1999 Order”) 3 to permit the recapture of Credits of up to 5% under the Contracts or the Future Contracts under the same specified circumstances. 3 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-23924 (July 28, 1999) (File No. 812-11662). 3. On May 21, 2001, the Commission issued an order of exemption (“May 2001 Order”) 4 amending the July 1999 Order to permit the recapture of Credits of up to 6% under the Contracts and the Future Contracts under the same and certain two additional circumstances. The additional circumstances include the recapture of Excess Credits when a Contract owner's Net First Year Contributions are lower than Total First Year Contributions, and when a Contract owner fails to fulfill the conditions of a Letter of Intent; all as described in the application for the May 2001 Order. 5 4 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-24980 (May 21, 2001) (File No. 812-12392). 5 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-24963 (April 26, 2001) (File No. 812-12392). 4. On September 26, 2003, the Commission issued an order of exemption (“September 2003 Order”) 6 amending the May 2001 Order (together with the May 1999 Order, the July 1999 Order and the May 2001 Order, the “Existing Order”) to permit the recapture of Credits of up to 6% under amended contracts (“Amended Contracts”) and Future Contracts, as defined in the application for the September 2003 Order, under the same and one additional circumstance. The additional circumstance includes the recapture of Credits when a Contract owner starts receiving annuity payments under a life contingent annuity payout option before the fifth contract date anniversary, as described in the application for the September 2003 Order. 7 6 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-26192 (Sept. 26, 2003) (File No. 812-13010). 7 *The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,* Rel. No. IC-26170 (August 26, 2003) (File No. 812-13010). The prospectus for the Amended Contracts is included in a registration statement on Form N-4 for SA 49, Reg. No. 333-64749. The Amended Contracts covered by that prospectus are referred to as the Accumulator®Plus SM 04 Contracts. 5. The Amended Contracts provide for a death benefit payment upon the death of the annuitant. The death benefit payment is equal to the greater of:
(1)The account value as of the date the Company receives satisfactory proof of death and other required forms and information; or
(2)any applicable guaranteed minimum death benefit (“GMDB”) on the date of death (adjusted for any subsequent withdrawals, withdrawal charges and taxes that apply). Each GMDB is based on its related benefit base. The GMDB may be based on a benefit base calculated, in whole or in part, on contributions, but contributions for the purposes of this calculation do not include any Credits; or in part, on the highest account value as of particular dates, such as Contract anniversaries. The account value on a particular date includes any previously granted Credits, with any changes in value due to charges and investment performance. 6. The Amended Contracts provide a benefit option called “Protection Plus.” For an additional charge, the optional Protection Plus benefit provides an additional death benefit amount equal to 40% (25% for certain annuity issue ages) of the death benefit amount less total net contributions. 7. The Amended Contracts offer a guaranteed principal benefit (“GPB”) with two options. Under the first option (“GPB Type A”), the owner selects a fixed maturity option, and the Company specifies the portion of the initial contribution to be allocated to that fixed maturity option in an amount that will cause the value to equal the amount of the entire initial contribution (including any Credits) on the fixed maturity option's maturity date. Under the second option (“GPB Type B”), the Company specifies the portion of contributions to be allocated to one or more specified investment options. If on the benefit maturity date the account value is less than the amount guaranteed under GPB Type B, the Company increases the account value to be equal to the guaranteed amount. The guaranteed amount under the GPB Type B is equal to the initial contribution adjusted for any additional permitted contributions (excluding any Credits), withdrawals from the Contract, and in some cases transfers out of a specified fixed maturity option. 8. The Amended Contracts offer an optional guaranteed withdrawal benefit called “Principal Protector” (“GWB”). The GWB permits the owner to withdraw certain guaranteed amounts on an annual basis even if the account value falls to zero. The guaranteed withdrawal amounts are calculated using a GWB benefit base. The GWB benefit base is initially based on the initial contribution (not including any Credit). 9. The Amended Contracts include various options permitting under some circumstances the Amended Contract to be continued after a death of an annuitant that would otherwise trigger a death benefit payment. In those circumstances, the account value will be increased to the amount that would have been paid under a death benefit payment if such death benefit is greater than current account value. These options are described below. 10. Under the successor owner/annuitant option, if a spouse is the sole primary beneficiary or joint owner, and the annuitant dies, the spouse may elect to receive the death benefit or continue the Contract as successor owner/annuitant. If the surviving spouse decides to continue the Contract, the Company increases the account value to equal any elected GMDB, if greater, plus any amount applicable under the Protection Plus additional death benefit, adjusted for any subsequent withdrawals. 11. The spousal protection option permits, under some circumstances, spouses who are joint owners to increase the account value to equal the GMDB, if greater, plus any amount applicable under the Protection Plus additional death benefit, adjusted for any subsequent withdrawals. 12. The beneficiary continuation option permits an individual to maintain a Contract in the deceased owner's name and receive distributions under the Contract, instead of receiving the death benefit in a single sum. If this election is made, the Company increases the account value to equal any elected GMDB, if greater, plus any amount applicable under the Protection Plus additional death benefit, adjusted for any subsequent withdrawals. If the owner/annuitant dies, and the beneficiary continues GWB under the beneficiary continuation option, the GWB benefit base will be stepped-up to equal the account value, if higher, as of the transaction date that the Company receives the beneficiary continuation option election. 13. Subject to any necessary regulatory approvals, the Company intends to offer a further amended version of the Amended Contracts (the “2006 Amended Contracts”). The 2006 Amended Contracts will provide that, if the owner (or one of the joint owners) or annuitant dies within one year following the Company's receipt of a contribution to which Credit was applied, and that death triggers the calculation of a death benefit payment or recalculation of a benefit based on account value, the Company will reduce the account value by the amount of the Credit (or pro rated amount if required by state law). 14. The 2006 Amended Contracts will be issued through SA 49. Units of interest in SA 49 under the 2006 Amended Contracts will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933. 8 The Company may issue Future Contracts through SA 49, the other Accounts or Future Accounts. 8 On March 6, 2006, AXA Equitable and SA 49 filed a prospectus supplement for the Accumulator®Plus SM 04 Contracts (Reg. No. 333-64749) reflecting the Credit recapture within one year of death (and noting that any such recapture is subject to obtaining the exemptive order requested). See footnote 7 for information identifying the prospectus for the Accumulator®Plus SM 04 Contracts. In addition, on or about July 10, 2006, AXA Equitable plans to file in Reg. No. 333-64749 a new prospectus for a new generation of the Accumulator®Plus SM Contract, which will be referred to as the Accumulator®Plus SM 06 Contract, which is designed to replace the Accumulator®Plus SM 04 Contracts as necessary state approvals are obtained. The Accumulator®Plus SM 06 Contract will also include the Credit recapture within one year of death. The references in the application to the “2006 Amended Contracts” includes both Accumulator®Plus SM 04 Contracts with the addition of the Credit recapture within one year of death and all the Accumulator®Plus SM 06 Contracts (because all such Contracts will include the Credit recapture within one year of death). 15. That portion of the assets of each Account that is equal to the reserves and other contract liabilities with respect to that Account is not chargeable with liabilities arising out of any other business of AXA Equitable or AXA Life and Annuity. Any income, gains or losses, realized or unrealized, from assets allocated to an Account is, in accordance with the relevant contracts, credited to or charged against the Account, without regard to other income, gains or losses of AXA Equitable or AXA Life and Annuity. The same will be true of any Future Account of AXA Equitable or AXA Life and Annuity. 16. Applicants assert that the Amended Contracts and the 2006 Amended Contracts are substantially similar in all respects material to the Existing Order and to the relief requested by the application, except for the addition of one additional circumstance under which the Company will recapture Credits applied to contributions. In particular, under the 2006 Amended Contracts, if a death of an owner (or one of the joint owners) or annuitant that would trigger a death benefit occurs during the one-year period following the Company's receipt of a contribution to which a Credit was applied, the Company will reduce the account value by the amount of such Credit. However, the Credit recapture does not vary based on whether the benefit is triggered by the death of an owner or an annuitant and applies to any death that would trigger a death benefit. This account value reduction may affect the calculation of any death benefit payment, any supplemental death benefit payment under the Protection Plus benefit and account value and benefit calculations made at time of death when the Contract is continued under the successor owner and annuitant option, the spousal protection option, or the beneficiary continuation option. Each of these effects of the Credit recapture is discussed below. 17. Under the 2006 Amended Contracts, the account value used in the calculation of the death benefit payment will be reduced by the amount of any Credit applied within one year prior to the death of the owner/annuitant. The calculation of the GMDB will not be affected by the Credit recapture. A Credit recapture will reduce the death benefit payment if it causes the account value to fall below the GMDB or if the GMDB was already less than the account value. The Credit recapture will not affect the death benefit payment if the GMDB was greater than the account value before the Credit recapture. 18. To the extent that the recapture of the Credit reduces the death benefit payment amount, the recapture will also reduce the amount of the Protection Plus additional death benefit payment. 19. If a surviving spouse decides to continue the Contract under the successor owner/annuitant option, before calculating any possible increase in account value, the current account value will be reduced by the amount of any Credit applied within one year prior to the death of the owner/annuitant. 20. Under the spousal protection option, before calculating any possible increase in account value, the current account value will be reduced by the amount of any Credit applied within one year prior to the death of the owner/annuitant. 21. If the beneficiary continuation option is elected, the Company increases the account value to equal any elected GMDB, but before calculating any possible increase in account value, the current account value will be reduced by the amount of any Credit applied within one year prior to the death of the owner/annuitant. 22. Under the GWB benefit, if the owner/annuitant dies, and the beneficiary continues GWB under the beneficiary continuation option, the GWB benefit base will be stepped up to equal the account value. However, in calculating the step-up, the account value will be reduced by the amount of any Credit applied within one year prior to the death of the owner/annuitant. Therefore, the GWB benefit base under the step-up provision in connection with the beneficiary continuation option may be lower due to the Credit recapture (under some Contracts, the GWB ends if the beneficiary continuation option is selected; therefore, there is no step-up in the benefit base and the Credit recapture has no effect on the GWB benefit). 23. If a Contract continues under any successor owner/annuitant feature, the account value may be reduced by the amount of any recaptured Credit (as described above). If any portion of the Credit is recaptured from the fixed maturity option selected under GPB Type A, the amount in that fixed maturity option may not grow to equal the initial contribution plus the Credit. If any portion of the Credit is recaptured from a fixed maturity option under GPB Type B, the account value in that option would be reduced, but the guaranteed amount under GPB Type B would not be affected by the Credit recapture. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 6
(c)of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. 2. Applicants request that the Commission issue an amended order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit Applicants to recapture Credits under 2006 Amended Contracts under the same circumstances covered by the Existing Order, and if a death benefit is payable due to a death during the one-year period following the Company's receipt of a contribution to which a Credit was applied, as described above. 3. Applicants submit that the recapture of Credits under the 2006 Amended Contracts will not raise concerns under Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act, and Rule 22c-1 thereunder for the same reasons given in support of the Existing Order. Applicants submit that when the Company recaptures any Credit, it is simply retrieving its own assets. Applicants submit that a Contract owner's interest in any Credit allocated on contributions made within one-year of the owner or annuitant's death is not vested. Rather, the Company retains the right to, and interest in, the Credit, although not any earnings attributable to the Credit. 4. Applicants state that because a Contract owner's interest in any recapturable Credit is not vested, the owner will not be deprived of a proportionate share of the applicable Account's assets, *i.e.* , a share of the applicable Account's assets proportionate to the Contract owner's annuity account value (taking into account the investment experience attributable to any Credit). The amounts recaptured will never exceed the Credits provided by the Company from its own general account assets, and the Company will not recapture any gain attributable to the Credit. 5. Furthermore, Applicants submit that the recapture of Credits relating to contributions made within one year of death is designed to provide the Company with a measure of protection against “anti-selection.” The risk here is that rather than investing contributions over a number of years, a Contract owner could make a contribution to receive the benefits of the Credit shortly before the death (either through an increased death benefit payment or an increased account value or other benefit to a continuing owner), leaving the Company less time to recover the cost of the Credit applied. 6. Like the recapture of Credits permitted by the Existing Order, the amounts recaptured will equal the Credits provided by the Company from its own general account assets, and any gain associated with the Credit will remain part of the Contract owner's Contract value. Applicants are aware of no reason why the relief provided by the Existing Order should not also extend to the 2006 Amended Contracts. 7. For the foregoing reasons, Applicants submit that the provisions for recapture of any Credit under the 2006 Amended Contracts do not violate Section 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act, and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, and that the requested relief therefrom is consistent with the exemptive relief provided under the Existing Order. Conclusion Applicants submit, based on the grounds summarized above, that their request for an order that applies to the Accounts or any Future Account in connection with the issuance of 2006 Amended Contracts described herein and Future Contracts that are substantially similar in all material respects to the 2006 Amended Contracts and underwritten or distributed by AXA Advisors, LLC, AXA Distributors, LLC, or the Equitable Broker-Dealers, is appropriate in the public interest for the same reasons as those given in support of the Existing Order. Applicants submit, based on the grounds summarized above, that their exemptive request meets the standards set out in section 6(c) of the Act, namely, that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act, and that, therefore, the Commission should grant the requested order. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11897 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54171; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Regarding a Disaster Recovery Facility July 19, 2006. On January 3, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change regarding the establishment of a disaster recovery facility (“DRF”). On June 2, 2006, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, CBOE made minor revisions to the proposed rule text and clarified certain details of its proposal. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54014 (June 19, 2006), 71 FR 36367 (“Notice”). The Exchange proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 6.18, which contains the rules that would govern the operation of the DRF in the event of a disaster or other unusual circumstance that renders the Exchange's trading floor inoperable. As set forth in the Notice, the DRF would allow CBOE's members to operate remotely in a screen-based-only environment until the Exchange's trading floor again became available. Prior to the commencement of trading on the DRF, the Exchange would announce all classes of securities that would be traded on the DRF with priority given to those classes exclusively listed on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that it is able to conduct appropriate surveillance of trading activity on the DRF and has in place relevant surveillance procedures. 5 All classes of securities traded on the DRF would be subject to the Exchange's Hybrid System rules relating to the electronic component of Hybrid trading and any applicable non-trading rules. To the extent system capacity limits the number of members that can quote on the DRF, proposed Exchange Rule 6.18 provides a priority system to select member participants. Connectivity procedures are available to all CBOE members. The Exchange represents that there is already sufficient member connectivity to ensure that the DRF, if activated, could operate in a useful manner. 6 5 *See* Notice at 3. 6 *Id.* The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, 8 which requires that an exchange is organized and has the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange. Specifically, the Commission finds that proposed Exchange Rule 6.18 provides a business continuity plan that is reasonably designed to allow the Exchange to continue its trading operations in the event a disaster or other unusual circumstance renders the CBOE trading floor inoperable. Furthermore, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to enhance the resilience of the U.S. financial markets generally. 7 In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to provide market participants with the necessary disclosure to understand the Exchange's operational capabilities and plans in the event of a disaster. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-01), as amended, is approved. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11926 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54179; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-013] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Modify Nasdaq Data Feeds July 20, 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 June 21, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq is proposing to incorporate data from Nasdaq's INET facility into Nasdaq TotalView data entitlements and to establish fees for the use and distribution of those data entitlements. Nasdaq proposes to:
(1)Incorporate the INET ITCH Feed into the TotalView entitlement, rename the feed TotalView ITCH, and charge TotalView user fees to TotalView ITCH Feed recipients;
(2)add the full depth of Nasdaq Market Participant quoting of New York Stock Exchange-(“NYSE”) and American Stock Exchange-(“Amex”) listed stocks into the TotalView entitlement;
(3)establish a modified distributor fee for the TotalView entitlement, renamed the “Depth Feed”;
(4)establish a modified user fee schedule for TotalView data;
(5)allow for the unlimited, free distribution of Nasdaq's aggregate best bid and offer quotation for Nasdaq's quoting in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks; and
(6)charge fees for the receipt and distribution of individual Nasdaq Market Participants' best bid and offer in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks. If approved, Nasdaq states that it would make this proposal effective at the beginning of the first full month following the integration of Nasdaq's trading systems into a single platform. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53583 (March 31, 2006), 71 FR 19573 (April 14, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001). Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is *italicized* and proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 7019. Market Data Distributor Fees
(a)No change.
(b)The charge to be paid by Distributors of the following Nasdaq Market Center real time data feeds shall be: Monthly direct access fee Monthly internal distributor fee Monthly external distributor fee Issue Specific Data *$1000 for distribution to 50 or fewer subscribers;* *$500 for distribution to 10 or fewer subscribers;* $2,500 *for distribution to more than 50 and less than or equal to 100 subscribers;* Dynamic Intraday $2,500 $1,000 *for distribution to greater than 10 subscribers* *$4,500 for distribution to greater than 100.* *Depth Feed:* [TotalView] [OpenView] Daily MFQS $500 $0 $500. Market Summary Statistics: Intraday $500 $50 $1,500. Real Time Index *A distributor shall pay the higher of either the internal distributor fee or the external distributor fee but not both.* (c)-(d) No change. 7023. Nasdaq TotalView
(a)TotalView Entitlement The TotalView entitlement allows a subscriber to see all individual Nasdaq Market Center participant orders and quotes displayed in the system as well as the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price level in the execution functionality of the Nasdaq Market Center, *which currently includes Nasdaq, NYSE- and Amex-listed securities. In the case of Nasdaq listed securities, this entitlement automatically* includ *es* [ing] the NQDS feed [and the Brut System Book Feed]. (1)(A) Except as provided in (a)(1)(B) and (C), for the TotalView entitlement there shall be a $ *75* [70] monthly charge for each controlled device.
(B)Except as provided in (a)(1)(C), a non-professional subscriber, as defined in Rule 7011(b), shall pay $14 per month for each controlled device.
(C)As an alternative to (a)(1)(A) and (B), a broker-dealer distributor may purchase an enterprise license at a rate of $25,000 for non-professional subscribers or $100,000 per month for both professional and non-professional subscribers. The enterprise license entitles a distributor to provide TotalView to an unlimited number of internal users, whether such users receive the data directly or through third-party vendors, and external users with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship. The enterprise license shall not apply to relevant Level 1 and NQDS fees.
(2)30-Day Free-Trial Offer. Nasdaq shall offer all new individual subscribers and potential new individual subscribers a 30-day waiver of the user fees for TotalView. This waiver shall not include the incremental fees assessed for the NQDS-only service [, which are $30 for professional users and $9 for non-professional users per month]. This fee waiver period shall be applied on a rolling basis, determined by the date on which a new individual subscriber or potential individual subscriber is first entitled by a distributor to receive access to TotalView. A distributor may only provide this waiver to a specific individual subscriber once. For the period of the offer, *only* the TotalView *portion of the TotalView monthly* fee [of $40 per professional user and $5 per non-professional user per month] shall be waived.
(b)No change.
(c)OpenView *(1)* The OpenView entitlement package consists of [all] *the best bid and offer quotation from each* individual Nasdaq Market Center participant quoting [quotes and orders] in *non-Nasdaq* exchange-listed securities in the system. There shall be a charge of $6 per month per controlled device for Open View. *(2) The OpenView Top-of-File (“OpenView TOF”) entitlement package consists of the Nasdaq aggregate best bid and offer quotation for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities in the system. There shall be no fee for the distribution of the Open View TOF.*
(d)No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On December 7, 2005, Nasdaq acquired INET ATS, Inc., a registered broker-dealer and member of the NASD, and operator of the INET ATS (“INET”). Once purchased by Nasdaq, INET became a facility of a national securities association. On November 1, 2005, Nasdaq submitted a proposed rule change to establish rules governing the operation of this facility. 4 This proposed rule change was approved by the Commission on December 7, 2005. 5 On January 13, 2006, the Commission issued an order conditionally approving Nasdaq's registration as a national securities exchange. 6 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52723 (November 2, 2005), 70 FR 67513 (November 7, 2005) (proposing SR-NASD-2005-128). 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 13, 2005) (approving SR-NASD-2005-128). 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131). In its proposed rules governing the operation of the INET facility, Nasdaq stated its intention of ultimately integrating the INET facility with Nasdaq into a single technology platform that would further enhance execution quality for system users. 7 Nasdaq states that, as part of that process, it must, among other things, have INET distribute its full depth of its order book via its premium data entitlements, *e.g.* , TotalView. 8 Nasdaq states that this step would be completed when Nasdaq completes the integration of its INET, Brut, and Nasdaq Market Center trading facilities into a single integrated system—the “Single Book”—as set forth in SR-NASDAQ-2006-001. 9 7 *See supra* note 4 at 67522. 8 *Id.* 9 *See supra* note 3. Nasdaq states that Nasdaq TotalView is a comprehensive source of Nasdaq order and quote information, and provides the greatest level of transparency into the Nasdaq stock market. Nasdaq states that today, TotalView provides 23 times the liquidity displayed and nearly 5 times the orders disseminated by the Nasdaq Quotation Dissemination Service (“NQDS”). Nasdaq's full depth in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks (OpenView) also provides access to 40% more liquidity than the top-of-file quote quotes provided via the Consolidated Quotation System feed from the Securities Information Automation Corporation. If approved, Nasdaq expects the proposed Nasdaq, Brut, and INET integrated data would represent triple the current level of liquidity. Integrating INET Data Into Nasdaq Entitlements Nasdaq states that a consequence of this integration is that market participants would be able to receive real-time information regarding the orders in INET's order book via two distinct sources. Today, Nasdaq's TotalView Feed provides information regarding all quotes and orders in the Nasdaq Market Center for Nasdaq-listed securities (including, but not limited to, INET orders). Upon the integration of the INET system, the Nasdaq TotalView entitlement would, if approved, for the first time include the equivalent quotation information for NYSE- and Amex-listed securities. Also today, INET separately disseminates the INET ITCH Feed, which contains information regarding orders entered into INET. Upon the integration to a single consolidated platform, the ITCH data feeds (1.0, 2.0, 2.0a, and 3.0) would be re-named “TotalView ITCH” and would contain the equivalent quotes and orders as those carried by TotalView, albeit in different formats. Thus, upon integration of Nasdaq's trading systems, the TotalView Entitlement, would be available in two separate datafeed formats, and both would contain substantially more data than they do today. Because Nasdaq proposes to continue to distribute INET order information via both the traditional TotalView Feed as well as the TotalView ITCH Feed and because both would contain identical data, Nasdaq believes that it is appropriate for it to incorporate the TotalView ITCH Feed within the TotalView entitlement for fee purposes. The TotalView entitlement is intended to assess fees for the receipt of real-time information regarding depth of order book and related information, regardless of source. While Nasdaq believes it important to offer market participants the choice to receive INET order book information via either the existing TotalView Feed or the TotalView ITCH Feed, it further believes there is no justification to warrant differential fees based on the method of delivery because the two methods would provide recipients with the same data. Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to incorporate the TotalView ITCH Feed into the TotalView entitlement effective upon the completion of the integration of the Single Book. Nasdaq states that, as of that time, any recipient of the TotalView ITCH Feeds would need to complete relevant market data agreements, begin submission of monthly usage reporting, and pay associated fees. Current recipients of the TotalView ITCH pay no fees and would be required to pay the TotalView entitlement fee for the first time. Under this proposal, incremental fees would be assessed only where a distributor distributes the TotalView ITCH Feeds in an application or context that does not already distribute TotalView Entitlements to provide Nasdaq Market Center order book information. Nasdaq notes that, of the approximately 145 firms currently receiving the INET ITCH Feeds, many are already TotalView or OpenView distributors, and thus, for those firms, this rule change would impose no incremental expense unless their usage is expanded. Consolidating Total View and OpenView Distribution and User Fees Nasdaq offers various data products that firms may purchase and redistribute either within their own organizations or to outside parties. Nasdaq assesses “distributor fees” that are designed to encourage broad distribution of the data, and allow Nasdaq to recover the relatively high fixed costs associated with supporting connectivity and contractual relationships with distributors. Currently, Nasdaq has the following approved distributor fees 10 in place for both TotalView and OpenView. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51814 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 35151 (June 16, 2005) (approving SR-NASD-2004-185). • TotalView and OpenView Direct Access Fee: $2,500 per month each. • TotalView and OpenView Internal Distribution Fee: $1,000 per month each. • TotalView and OpenView External Distribution Fee: $2,500 per month each. Thus, for example, if a firm receives TotalView and OpenView directly from Nasdaq and distributes the data externally, the firm currently pays $10,000 per month in distributor fees ($2,500 for direct access to TotalView, $2,500 for direct access to OpenView, $2,500 to externally distribute TotalView, and $2,500 to externally distribute OpenView). To promote the continued distribution of full depth data as it becomes available with the full complement of INET order information, Nasdaq is proposing to combine the distribution of TotalView and OpenView data into a single entitlement for distribution purposes. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to establish the “Depth Feed Distributor Fees,” a consolidated entitlement with a pricing structure comprised of three components: • Depth Feed Direct Access Fee: $2,500 per month for any organization that receives an intraday Nasdaq market center depth data product directly from Nasdaq. Nasdaq states that a distributor receiving this data indirectly via a re-transmission vendor would not be liable for the Direct Access Fee. • Depth Feed Internal Distribution Fee: $500 per month for internal distributors with distribution of TotalView data to 10 or fewer subscribers; $1000 per month for internal distributors with distribution of TotalView data to greater than 10 subscribers. Nasdaq states that, as with the current Internal Distribution Fees, this fee would be applicable to any organization that receives an intraday Nasdaq market center depth data product (either directly from Nasdaq or through a retransmission vendor) and distributes the data solely within its own organization. • Depth Feed External Distribution Fee: $1,000 per month for external distributors distributing TotalView data to 50 or fewer subscribers; $2,500 per month for external distributors distributing TotalView data to more than 50 and less than or equal to 100 subscribers; and $4,500 per month for external distributors distributing TotalView data to more than 100 recipients. Nasdaq states that, as is the case today, this fee would be applicable to any organization that receives an intraday Nasdaq market center depth data product (either directly from Nasdaq or through a retransmission vendor) and distributes the data outside its own organization. Nasdaq states that, under the new schedule, a firm that receives a TotalView Feed and/or an INET ITCH Feed directly from Nasdaq and distributes the data externally, would pay a range of $3,500-$7,000 per month, depending upon the number of end users, a significant reduction from the currently approved fees. Nasdaq states that the only firms that would be assessed higher fees would be:
(1)distributors of the TotalView ITCH Feed alone because it is currently free and is proposed to be fee liable; and
(2)firms that currently distribute either TotalView or OpenView but not both, and distribute that data to more than 100 subscribers, would have a resulting increase of $2,000 per month. Nasdaq states that, for that incremental $2,000 per month, those firms, of which there are currently seventeen, would gain the ability to distribute both NYSE-/Amex-listed and Nasdaq-listed depth information to their subscribers where they had previously provided only one of them. Nasdaq states that an organization that receives the Nasdaq Market Center full depth data directly from Nasdaq would pay the Direct Access Fee plus the higher of either the Internal Distribution or External Distribution Fee (but not both). An organization that only receives the Nasdaq Market Center full depth data indirectly from a retransmission vendor would pay either the Internal Distribution or External Distribution fee (but not both). Nasdaq states that, as with past distributor fee structures, the External Distribution Fee is higher than the Internal Distribution Fee to reflect the fact that external distributors typically have broader distribution of the data than internal distributors. Nasdaq believes that lowering the fee for firms that subscribe to depth feeds would encourage more vendors to take the combination of both feeds. Additionally, Nasdaq believes that the new structure spreads the burden of Nasdaq data fees more equitably across the broader customer base of data distributors and consumers of Nasdaq market data. Fee Increased To Recover Costs Of Providing Additional Data Nasdaq states that, upon integration of the Single Book, both of Nasdaq's full depth feeds—TotalView and ITCH—would contain not only order and quotation information from Nasdaq market participant activity in Nasdaq-listed securities, but NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks as well. Upon the full Single Book integration, Nasdaq proposes to integrate the entitlement for full depth from Nasdaq market participants quoting in Nasdaq stocks with the full depth from Nasdaq market participants quoting in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks, resulting in a single entitlement to be called TotalView. This single entitlement would cost $75 per user per month for professional users and $14 per user per month for non-professional users. Nasdaq states that, in the case of non-professionals, there is no fee increase on account of this change, simply an increase in functionality. In the case of professional users, the TotalView user fee increases by $5, though for those users who previously subscribed to the TotalView and OpenView entitlements separately, this amounts to a $1 per user per month discount. Nasdaq states that only those users that had one of the companion entitlements without the other would pay more under this proposal. Distribution of Quotation Information for NYSE and Amex Securities To encourage more competition in the trading and quoting of NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks, as well as to encourage subscribership to Nasdaq's full-depth products, Nasdaq is proposing Nasdaq Rule 7023(c)(2) to institute a fee waiver for firms wishing to distribute Nasdaq's aggregate real-time best bid and offer quote for NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks via the TotalView or TotalView ITCH versions of its feeds. Nasdaq states that, in support of its exchange registration transition, it is proposing to distribute the best bid and offer from each Nasdaq market participant quoting in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks in real-time. As set forth in Nasdaq Rule 7023(c)(1), Nasdaq proposes a $6 per user per month price for this product. Nasdaq expects that most users currently receiving full depth from Nasdaq in NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks would continue to do so via the TotalView entitlement. However, for any subscriber currently receiving only this depth data for NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks ( *i.e.* , OpenView data), and not wishing to also receive the equivalent data for Nasdaq-listed stocks, this option would allow a user to continue paying at the same rate schedule for user-fees that they have in the past and the distributor fee schedule referenced earlier in this filing. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act 11 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 12 in particular, in that the incorporation of the TotalView ITCH Feeds into the TotalView entitlement and creating a unified distributor fee provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable charges among the persons distributing and purchasing Nasdaq depth of order book information. Nasdaq states that the proposed pricing structure would enable it to equitably charge for INET depth of book information regardless of the manner in which it is received, continue to provide market participants with choice regarding receipt of this information, and ease the transition to a single technology platform. Nasdaq further believes that this rule change would encourage the broader redistribution of the Nasdaq depth of book information, thus improving transparency and thereby benefit the investing public. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or
(ii)as to which Nasdaq 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-NASDAQ-2006-013 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-NASDAQ-2006-013. 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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2006-013 and should be submitted on or before August 16, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11925 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54180; File No. SR-NSX-2006-09] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto to Amend Its Fee Schedule Contained in Exchange Rule 11.10(A) to Include a Quotation Fee July 20, 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 3, 2006, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On July 19, 2006, NSX submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On July 20, 2006, NSX submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule reflected in Exchange Rule 11.10(A) to provide for a quotation fee. The quotation fee would be based upon the number of changes to the price or size of an ETP Holder's displayed bid or offer on the Exchange (“quotation updates”) and would apply only to the extent the ETP Holder's average number of daily quotation updates is greater than 3 million. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is in *italics.* RULES OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE CHAPTER XI Trading Rules Rule 11.10 National Securities Trading System Fees A. Trading Fees (a)-(r) No change. *(s) Quotation Fee. ETP Holders will be charged for quotation updates based upon the per quotation update rates as noted below. A “quotation update” means each change to the price or size of an ETP Holder's displayed bid or offer on the Exchange.* Avg. daily quotation updates Charge per quotation update 0 to 3,000,000 $0.00 3,000,001 and higher $0.01 over 3,000,000 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, as amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange's fee schedule reflected in Exchange Rule 11.10(A) currently provides for fees payable by ETP Holders based upon, among other things, transactions executed on the Exchange, but does not provide for any fees based solely upon the number of changes to the price or size of an ETP Holder's quotation updates. However, NSX states that quotation updates can affect both the Exchange's systems resources and its regulatory functions. For example, a sufficiently high level of quotation updates could require that the Exchange expend additional resources on its systems technology in order to avoid capacity and performance degradation issues. NSX states that the levels of surveillance and investigation required in order for the Exchange to adequately discharge its self-regulatory obligations also increase with an increase in quotation updates. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge a fee for high levels of quotation updates that consume a high amount of the Exchange's systems capacity and require a higher amount of regulatory scrutiny. The proposed quotation fee would be based upon the number of quotations updates posted by an ETP Holder, but would apply only to the extent that an ETP Holder averages in excess of 3 million quotation updates per day. The Exchange is proposing to charge ETP Holders that provide quotation updates in excess of 3 million updates on an average daily basis a penny a quote for all quotation updates in excess of 3 million. 5 The average daily quotation updates would be calculated on a monthly basis taking the total quotation updates for the month-end period (“TQU”) and dividing the TQU by the number of trading days the ETP Holder provides quotation updates. Three million would be subtracted from this average daily quotation to yield the amount of daily quotations in excess of 3 million quotes. The excess would be multiplied by a penny to yield the daily quote charge. The daily quote charge would be multiplied by the number of trading days quoted for the month to yield the monthly quote charge. NSX states that the monthly quote charge would be collected by the Exchange on a monthly basis. The formula for the quote charge thus is: [(Number of quotation updates for the month/number of trading days quoted) −3,000,000] × $.01 × the number of trading days quoted. 5 Thus, for example, an ETP Holder that has an averaged daily quotation updates of 3,000,001 would be assessed a penny and not have to pay $30,000.01. NSX states that, in deciding whether to assess a quote fee, it made a business decision to allow a certain level of quote traffic as part of any Equity Trading Permit regardless of any trading activity through NSX. The Exchange states that it determined to use 3 million as the baseline for its quoting traffic after taking into consideration a number of business concerns. According to NSX, these concerns include, but are not limited to, the cost to the Exchange assessed by the Consolidated Quotation Service and the Securities Information Processor for Tape C securities (including the cost of penalties for exceeding capacity), the cost to the Exchange for software and hardware costs associated with increased capacity, the average number of quotes provided by ETP Holders, the capacity of the old NSTS System, and the increased regulatory costs associated with the surveillance and investigations of ETP Holders. NSX states that any ETP Holder could choose to remain under the baseline for quoting traffic and not be charged any quote fee, or could choose to exceed the baseline and be charged only for those quote updates in excess of the baseline. Thus, the rule would apply equally to all ETP Holders. The Exchange states that the rule also benefits ETP Holders as it allows them to plan for and administer their quoting traffic based on cost considerations during the interim period until the Exchange's new trading system is launched. NSX states that the quotation fee has been designed in this manner in order to ensure that the Exchange can continue to fulfill its obligations under Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in the event of a high volume of quotation updates on the Exchange. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act 9 in that it helps to assure that the Exchange is so organized and has the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its ETP Holders with the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change, as amended. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 11 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 12 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposal, the Commission considers the period to commence on July 20, 2006, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, 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-NSX-2006-09 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-NSX-2006-09. 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-NSX-2006-09 and should be submitted on or before August 16, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11927 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54178; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-47] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Requiring Member Organizations to Remit a Branch Office System Processing Fee in Connection with the Registration of Branch Offices via the Uniform Branch Office Registration Form Through the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.'s Central Registration Depository System July 20, 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 June 30, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 3 NYSE has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by NYSE pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Pursuant to discussions with NYSE staff, the Commission has made clarifying changes throughout this notice. Telephone conversation between Stephen Kasprzak, Principal Counsel, and Cory Figman, Senior Special Counsel, Rule and Interpretive Standards, NYSE and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, on July 6, 2006 (“July 6 Telephone Conversation”). 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to require NYSE-only member organizations to remit to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) two fees in connection with branch offices processed via Form BR (Uniform Branch Office Registration Form) through NASD's Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) system. The fees, an initial $20.00 fee (“CRD Branch Office System Processing Fee”) and a $20.00 annual fee (“CRD Annual Branch Office System Processing Fee”), are consistent with those paid by NASD-only and joint NYSE/NASD member organizations. The fees would be reflected in the amended NYSE Price List. 6 The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at NYSE's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 6 The Exchange clarified that the amendments to the NYSE 2006 Price List would be inserted in the section entitled “Registration & Regulatory Fees,” in the subsection entitled “Registration Fees,” after the “Branch Office Fee” and before the “Registered Persons” fees. Telephone conversation between Cory Figman, Senior Special Counsel, NYSE and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division, Commission, on July 12, 2006. In addition, the Exchange clarified that it intends to change the date on the NYSE Price List from 2005 to 2006. *See* July 6 Telephone Conversation, *supra* note 3. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to require NYSE-only member organizations to remit to NASD two conforming branch office system processing fees in connection with the registration of branch offices via Form BR through NASD's CRD system. Background On September 30, 2005, the SEC approved the Exchange's proposed Form BR, which became effective on October 31, 2005. 7 The Form BR replaces Schedule E of the Form BD, the NYSE Branch Office Application Form and certain state branch office forms. The Form BR enables firms to register branch offices electronically with NASD, NYSE, and states that require branch registration or reporting via a single filing through the CRD system. At the same time, the SEC approved a comparable NASD rule proposal. 8 7 *See* Release No. 34-52543 (September 30, 2005), 70 FR 58771 (October 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-13). *See also* NYSE Information Memo 05-75. 8 *See* Release No. 34-52544 (September 30, 2005), 70 FR 58764 (October 7, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-030). *See also* NASD Notice to Members 05-66. Branch office registration through the CRD system creates efficiencies for firms by, among other things, making it easier for firms to register or report branch offices and to manage their ongoing registration and/or reporting responsibilities with regard to those branch offices. In addition to being able to submit a single filing to fulfill the branch office registration requirements of NASD, NYSE and the states, member organizations benefit from one centralized branch office system, online work queues, electronic notifications and other features available through the CRD system. Firms are also able to link their registered persons to the physical location from which they work via the Form BR, which not only aids regulators' examination efforts, but helps firms in meeting certain recordkeeping requirements. On May 23, 2006, NASD filed for immediate effectiveness a filing establishing an annual branch office system processing fee and waiver of the annual branch office system processing fee and the annual branch office registration fee for one branch office per member per year. 9 The branch office system processing fee is set at $20.00 upon the registration of a branch office and $20.00 annually thereafter per registered branch. NASD will begin assessing the processing fee during the third quarter of 2006 for all branch offices in existence as of July 3, 2006. 10 NASD will bill firms for all branch offices in existence as of July 3, 2006 via invoices, rather than through the CRD system. 11 For any branch office that is registered on or after July 3, 2006, NASD will assess and collect the branch office system processing fee through the CRD system at the time a firm registers a new branch office. 12 Starting December 2006, all firms will be assessed $20.00 annually for each existing branch office as part of the CRD renewal program. 13 In NASD's filing, it was noted that the manner of assessment and collection of branch office system processing fees from firms that are solely members of other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) that require their members to register branch offices via the Form BR would be addressed by other SROs. 14 9 *See* Release No. 34-53955 (June 7, 2006), 71 FR 34658 (June 15, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-065). 10 *Id* . 11 *Id* . 12 *Id* . 13 *Id* . 14 *Id* . The proposed rule change would require NYSE-only members to remit to NASD a conforming initial $20.00 CRD Branch Office System Processing Fee and a conforming $20.00 CRD Annual Branch Office System Processing Fee in connection with branch offices processed via Form BR through the CRD system. These fees would be included on the NYSE Price List. The purpose of these branch office system processing fees is to recover the cost to NASD of developing and implementing the Form BR as well as for ongoing branch office system maintenance and enhancements. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 15 which requires the rules of an Exchange to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members, and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition 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 Comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 16 of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 17 in that it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable to NYSE members. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2006-47 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-NYSE-2006-47. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-47 and should be submitted on or before August 16, 2006 For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11929 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5474] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-1998E, Foreign Service Written Examination Registration Form, OMB Control Number 1405-0008 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Foreign Service Written Examination Registration Form. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0008. • *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* Human Resources, HR/REE/BEX. • *Form Number:* DS-1998E. • *Respondents:* Registrants for the Foreign Service Written Examination. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 32,316. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 32,316. • *Average Hours Per Response:* 20 minutes ( 1/3 hour). • *Total Estimated Burden:* 10,772 hours. • *Frequency:* Annually. • *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for up to 30 days from July 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *kastrich@omb.eop.gov* . You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents from Margaret Dean, HR/REE/BEX, SA-1, 2401 E Street, H-518, Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached on 202-261-8898 or at *deanmm@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. Abstract of Proposed Collection Individuals registering for the Foreign Service Written Examination will provide information about their name, age, Social Security Number, contact information, ethnicity, and very brief information on their education and work history. The information will be used to prepare and issue admission to the examination, to help improve future examinations, and to conduct research studies based on the examination results. Methodology Responses can be submitted via the online registration option or by telephone contact with the test contractor. Dated: June 26, 2006. Raphael Mirabal, Deputy Director, Bureau of Human Resources, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-11937 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-15-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Meeting No. 06-04] Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Date: 10 a.m., July 28, 2006. TVA West Tower Auditorium, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee. Status: Open. Agenda Old Business Approval of minutes of June 28, 2006, Board Meeting. New Business 1. Report of the Finance, Strategy, and Rates Committee A. FY 2007 Budget proposal. B. Proposed Rate Adjustment, including fuel cost adjustment (FCA). C. Proposed notice of termination and other actions regarding Variable Price Interruptible Power. 2. Report of the Audit and Ethics Committee. A. Selection of PwC as external auditor. 3. Report of the Operations, Environment, and Safety Committee. A. *Contract* —two term coal contracts for Kingston Fossil Plant with Trinity Coal Marketing LLC, and with Alpha Coal Sales Company LLC. B. *Contract* —one term coal contract extension for Allen Fossil Plant with COALSALES LLC as agent for Powder River Coal Company. C. *Contract* —uranium enrichment services for Sequoyah Unit 1 and Watts Bar Unit 1 with Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. D. *Contract supplement* —for nuclear fuel fabrication and related engineering services for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant with Areva NP, Inc. E. *Contract supplement* —for nuclear security services at all TVA nuclear sites with Pinkerton Government Services. F. *Contract* —purchase of uranium hexafluoride
(UF6)for use in nuclear fuel from Areva NC, Inc. 4. Report of the Community Relations Committee. 5. President's Report. 6. Information items approved by the Board previously. A. *Long-Term Power Supply* —Approved price quote under arrangements with a directly served customer (Unnamed due to confidentiality provision with customer). B. Approved adjusted blended energy prices under the Time-of-Use Blended Pricing Program arrangements with Arnold Engineering Development Center. C. Approved extension and revision of existing interim delegations on personnel and compensation actions. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please call TVA Media Relations at
(865)632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's Washington Office
(202)898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call
(865)632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Dated: July 21, 2006. Maureen H. Dunn, General Counsel and Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-6503 Filed 7-24-06; 10:30 am]
Connectionstraces to 7
5 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 30
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 2 CFR 240.19
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment
C.F.R.§ 20.1402
C.F.R.§ 30.36
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 78f
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 552
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 30
Cite10 CFR 20
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite2 CFR 240.19
Cites 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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