Notices. Notice
23,966 words·~109 min read·
/register/2007/01/11/07-64·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)].
This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed reinstatement of the “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979.” A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the individual listed in the Addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section below on or before March 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212, 202-691-7628. (This is not a toll free number.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7628. (See Addresses section.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) is a nationally representative survey of people who were born in the years 1957 to 1964 and lived in the U.S. when the survey began in 1979. NLSY79 participants were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1994 and have been interviewed every two years since 1994. The focus of the survey is labor market experiences, but the survey also covers topics that affect or are affected by labor market activity. These topics include education, training, marital and family relationships, fertility, childcare, health, substance use, and others. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)contracts with the National Opinion Research Center
(NORC)of the University of Chicago to conduct the NLSY79. Prior to each round of the NLSY79, a pretest has been conducted with a separate, smaller sample to help ensure the proper functioning of questionnaires, procedures, and systems and to rectify any problems before the main fielding of the NLSY79. Over time, the size of the pretest sample has declined significantly, and the characteristics of pretest participants now differ so sharply from the characteristics of most NLSY79 participants that the pretest no longer is a useful tool to detect and remedy problems with the survey. For this reason, the BLS and its contractors have decided to replenish the pretest sample. One of the goals of the Department of Labor
(DOL)is to produce and disseminate timely, accurate, and relevant information about the U.S. labor force. The BLS contributes to this goal by gathering information about the labor force and labor market and disseminating it to policymakers and the public so that participants in those markets can make more informed, and thus more efficient, choices. Research based on the NLSY79 contributes to the formation of national policy in the areas of education, training, employment programs, and school-to-work transitions. In addition to the reports that the BLS produces based on data from the NLSY79, members of the academic community publish articles and reports based on NLSY79 data for the DOL and other funding agencies. The survey design provides data gathered from the same respondents over time to form the only data set that contains this type of intergenerational information for these important population groups. Without the collection of these data, an accurate longitudinal data set could not be provided to researchers and policymakers, thus adversely affecting the DOL's ability to perform its policy- and report-making activities. II. Current Action The BLS seeks approval to conduct interviews to replenish the pretest sample of the NLSY79. The process of replenishing the sample requires new sample members to be interviewed during the summer of 2007. The information obtained from this interview will be used for an input file during the NLSY79 Round 23 pretest that is planned for October 2007. Because the NLSY79 is longitudinal, the questions that respondents are asked in one round sometimes depend on the responses they provided in previous rounds. The summer 2007 interview is necessary to obtain information that will enable all questions to function properly in the October 2007 pretest. At an appropriate later date, the BLS will request approval to conduct the regular pretest and main fielding for Round 23 of the NLSY79. The expanded pretest sample will add 100 cooperative respondents born in the years 1957 to 1964. The sample will be selected from a targeted telephone list of approximately 1,000 numbers that is maintained in the NORC telephone center system. To make the dialing effort more efficient, NORC will screen its list for phone numbers that are no longer working or that are associated with businesses. The new sample members will be dispersed across rural, suburban, and urban tracts within 40 miles of Chicago. The sample will be targeted across these different types of tracts based on the area codes selected for the replenishment effort. By design, the replenished pretest sample will be one of convenience rather than one used to produce nationally representative estimates. The sample characteristics will be constrained only by the birth year, but the BLS and its contractors will seek a diverse mix of men and women across racial and ethnic groups. Employed individuals also will be targeted so that the pretest can effectively examine the most critical NLSY79 questionnaire paths, which relate to employment. III. Desired Focus of Comments The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility. • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. *Type of Review:* Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Title:* National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. *OMB Number:* 1220-0109. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. Form Total respondents Frequency Total responses Average time per response Estimated total burden NLSY79 Pretest Sample Replenishment Screener 1,000 Once 1,000 3 minutes 50 hours. NLSY79 Pretest Sample Replenishment Interview 100 Once 100 15 minutes 25 hours. Totals 1,100 1,100 75 hours. Note: In some cases, the respondents for the replenishment interview will be the same people who responded to the screener. These respondents could be different people, however. For example, one spouse who was not born in the years 1957 to 1964 and therefore is ineligible for the pretest sample may respond to the screener questions, while the other spouse who is eligible for the pretest sample responds to the replenishment interview. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of January 2007. Cathy Kazanowski, Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [FR Doc. E7-162 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Information Security Oversight Office; Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB); Notice of Meeting Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which extended and modified the Public Interest Declassification Board
(PIDB)as established by the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-567, title VII, December 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2856), announcement is made for the following committee meeting: *Name of Committee:* Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB). *Date of Meeting:* Friday, January 19, 2007. *Time of Meeting:* 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. *Place of Meeting:* National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408. *Purpose:* To discuss declassification program issues. This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO)no later than Monday, January 15, 2007. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting. *For Further Information Contact:* J. William Leonard, Director Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number
(202)357-5250. Dated: January 9, 2007. J. William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight Office. [FR Doc. E7-254 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-008-ESP; ASLBP No. 04-822-02-ESP] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site); Order (Notice of Opportunity To Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements) January 5, 2007. Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Dr. Thomas S. Elleman, Dr. Richard F. Cole. This proceeding concerns the September 25, 2003 application of Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC for an early site permit
(ESP)for the possible construction of two nuclear power reactors on the site of two existing nuclear reactors in Mineral, Virginia. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(a), the Board will entertain oral limited appearance statements from members of the public regarding the North Anna ESP application. The limited appearance statement session will be held on February 8, 2007 from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST at the Louisa County High School auditorium, 757 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia 23117. I. Background and Scope of Proceeding The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has defined an ESP as “Commission approval * * * for a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities.” 10 CFR 52.3(b). If an ESP application is approved, then, if the holder applies for a later construction permit, “the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in the proceeding on the application for issuance or renewal of the early site permit.” 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2). The North Anna ESP application also includes a site redress plan, which, if approved, would allow the ESP holder to prepare the site for construction of the plant, as long as the activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact which cannot be redressed, and the applicant commits to redress the site if a construction permit is not issued. 10 CFR 52.25. *See* North Anna ESP Application, Revision 9, 4-1-1 (September 2006). The applicant may not undertake any other construction activities on the site, however, without having applied for and received a construction or combined operating license from the NRC. 10 CFR 52.3. On December 2, 2003, the Commission published a notice of hearing with regard to Dominion's North Anna ESP application, notifying the public of the mandatory hearing on certain uncontested safety and environmental issues, and of the right to petition for leave to intervene to contest the application. 68 FR 67489 (Dec. 2, 2003). On January 2, 2004, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Public Citizen filed a petition to intervene. The predecessor Board admitted two of the Intervenors' contentions. *See Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC* (North Anna ESP), LBP-04-18, 60 NRC 253, 274 (2004). On January 13, 2006, Dominion submitted a supplement to its application, proposing to change the cooling system for proposed Unit 3 and to increase the power level of each proposed unit (Units 3 and 4) from 4300 MWt to 4500 MWt. As a consequence, the application process was delayed by a year. The Staff issued a supplemental Final Safety Evaluation Report
(FSER)on November 15, 2006, and a supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)on December 14, 2006, addressing the changed application. Both of the admitted contentions were resolved, one by a settlement and the other by summary disposition. Licensing Board Order (Approving Settlement and Dismissal of Contention EC 3.3.4) (Jan. 6, 2005) (unpublished); *Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC* (North Anna ESP), LBP-06-24, 64 NRC (2006). This is now an uncontested proceeding mandated by Section 189a(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)(A), and 10 CFR 52.21. In an uncontested proceeding for an ESP, the Board must make findings on six issues. See 68 FR 67489, 67489 (December 2, 2003). They are as follows: 1. *Safety Issue 1:* The Director of the Office of New Reactors
(NRR)is obligated to propose a finding as to whether issuance of the ESP will be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The Board must decide whether the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information, and the review of application by the NRC Staff has been adequate to support a finding that the issuance of the ESP will NOT be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 2. *Safety Issue 2:* The Director of NRR is obligated to propose a finding as to whether, taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a reactor, or reactors, having the characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site, can be constructed without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The Board must decide whether the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information, and the review of application by the NRC Staff has been adequate to support a finding that, taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a reactor, or reactors, having the characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site, can be constructed without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. 3. *NEPA Issue:* The Director of NRR is obligated to propose a finding as to whether, in accordance with the requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the ESP should be issued as proposed. The Board must decide whether the review conducted by the Commission pursuant to NEPA has been adequate. 4. *NEPA Baseline Issue 1:* The Board must decide whether the requirements of Section 102(2)(A),
(C)and
(E)of NEPA and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been complied with in the proceeding. 5. *NEPA Baseline Issue 2:* The Board must independently consider the final balance among the conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding and must determine the appropriate action to be taken. 6. *NEPA Baseline Issue 3:* The Board must determine, after considering reasonable alternatives, whether the ESP should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values. II. Notice of Limited Appearance Statement Session A. Date, Time, and Location of Oral Limited Appearance Statement Session The oral limited appearance statement session will be from 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM EST on February 8, 2007, at the Louisa County High School auditorium, 757 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia 23117. B. Participation Guidelines for Oral Limited Appearance Statements Any person who is not currently a party will be permitted to make an oral statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern related to this ESP application. The jurisdiction of this Board and the scope of this proceeding is limited to the six issues, listed above, that the Board must decide regarding the ESP application. Limited appearance statements will be transcribed, but are not under oath or affirmation and do not constitute testimony or evidence. The purpose of limited appearance statements is to allow members of the public to alert the Board and the parties to areas of concern relating to the ESP application and to assist the Board in its consideration of the six issues. Members of the public who plan to attend the limited appearance session are advised that security measures may be employed at the entrance to the hearing facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. Signs can be no larger than 18 inches by 18 inches and may not be attached to sticks, held up, or moved about in the rooms. Policy Statement on Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings, 67 FR 36920, 36923 (May 28, 2002). In order to allow the maximum number of interested persons an opportunity to address the Board, the time allotted for each oral limited appearance statement normally will be no more than five minutes, and the allocated time may be further limited, depending on the number of written requests to make an oral statement that are submitted in accordance with section C below and/or the number of persons present at the designated time. At the outset of each statement, the speaker should identify himself or herself and specify any affiliation (such as employment, consultancy, or membership) with any of the parties. C. Submitting a Request To Make an Oral Limited Appearance Statement Persons who have submitted a timely written request to make an oral limited appearance statement will be given priority over those who have not filed such a request or who sign up to speak on the date of the session. To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must either be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Monday, February 5, 2007. Written requests to make an oral statement should be submitted to: *Mail:* Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. *Fax:*
(301)415-1101 (verification
(301)415-1966). *E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov.* In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written request to make an oral statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows: *Mail:* Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, c/o: Margaret Parish, Esq., Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3 E2C, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. *Fax:*
(301)415-5599 (verification
(301)415-6094). *E-mail* : *ksv@nrc.gov* and *map4@nrc.gov* . D. Written Limited Appearance Statements (In Lieu of Oral Statements) A written limited appearance statement may be submitted to the Board regarding this proceeding. Such statements should be submitted by April 19, 2007, and should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using the methods prescribed above, with a copy to the Licensing Board Chairman. III. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852) or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). 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.* IV. Scheduling Information Updates Any updated/revised scheduling information regarding the limited appearance session can be found by calling
(800)368-5642 or
(301)415-8200 or on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.* *It is so ordered.* The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, on January 5, 2007. Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. E7-258 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27655; 812-13279] NexBank Securities, Inc. and NexBank Series; Notice of Application January 4, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). ACTION: Notice of an application under
(a)section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 2(a)(35), 14(a), 19(b), 22(d) and 26(a)(2)(C) of the Act and rules 19b-1 and rule 22c-1 thereunder and
(b)sections 11(a) and 11(c) of the Act for approval of certain exchange and rollover privileges. Applicants: NexBank Securities, Inc. (“NexBank Securities”) and NexBank Series (“Nexbank”). 1 1 Applicants also request relief for existing and future series (“Series”) of NexBank and of other unit investment trusts (“UITs”) sponsored by a Depositor (“Trusts”). The “Depositors” are NexBank Securities and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with NexBank Securities. Any future Series that relies on the requested order will comply with the terms and conditions of the application. All presently existing Trusts that currently intend to rely on the requested order are named as applicants. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain UITs to:
(a)Impose sales charges on a deferred basis and waive the deferred sales charge in certain cases;
(b)offer unitholders certain exchange and rollover options;
(c)publicly offer units without requiring the Depositor to take for its own account or place with others $100,000 worth of units; and
(d)distribute capital gains resulting from the sale of portfolio securities within a reasonable time after receipt. Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 17, 2006. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. 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 Commission's Secretary 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 January 29, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer'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 Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Felice R. Foundos, Chapman and Cutler LLP, 111 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6990, or Stacy L. Fuller, Branch Chief, at
(202)551-6821 (Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone
(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. Nexbank is a UIT registered under the Act. Each Series will be a series of a Trust, each a UIT which is or will be registered under the Act. NexBank Securities, a Delaware corporation, is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a broker-dealer and is the depositor of NexBank. Each Trust will be sponsored by a Depositor. Each Series will be created by a trust indenture between the Depositor and a banking institution or trust company as trustee (“Trustee”). 2. The Depositor acquires a portfolio of securities, which it deposits with the Trustee in exchange for certificates representing units of fractional undivided interest in the Series' portfolio (“Units”). The Units are offered to the public through the Depositor and dealers at a price which, during the initial offering period, is based upon the aggregate market value of the underlying securities plus a front-end sales charge. The Depositor may reduce the sales charge in compliance with rule 22d-1 under the Act in certain circumstances, which are disclosed in the Series' prospectus. 3. The Depositor does not currently intend to maintain a secondary market for Units of outstanding Series, but may seek to do so in the future. Other broker-dealers may or may not maintain a secondary market for Units of a Series. If a secondary market is maintained, investors will be able to purchase Units on the secondary market at the current public offering price plus a front-end sales charge. If such a market is not maintained at any time for any Series, holders of the Units (“Unitholders”) of that Series may redeem their Units through the Trustee. A. Deferred Sales Charge and Waiver of Deferred Sales Charge Under Certain Circumstances 1. Applicants request an order to the extent necessary to permit one or more Series to impose a sales charge on a deferred basis (“DSC”). For each Series, the Depositor would set a maximum sales charge per Unit, a portion of which may be collected “up front” (i.e., at the time an investor purchases the Units). The DSC would be collected subsequently in installments (“Installment Payments”) as described in the application. The Depositor would not add any amount for interest or any similar or related charge to adjust for such deferral. 2. When a Unitholder redeems or sells Units, the Depositor intends to deduct any unpaid DSC from the redemption or sale proceeds. When calculating the amount due, the Depositor will assume that Units on which the DSC has been paid in full are redeemed or sold first. With respect to Units on which the DSC has not been paid in full, the Depositor will assume that the Units held for the longest time are redeemed or sold first. Applicants represent that the DSC collected at the time of redemption or sale, together with the Installment Payments and any amount collected up front, will not exceed the maximum sales charge per Unit. Under certain circumstances, the Depositor may waive the collection of any unpaid DSC in connection with redemptions or sales of Units. These circumstances will be disclosed in the prospectus for the relevant Series and implemented in accordance with rule 22d-1 under the Act. 3. Each Series offering Units subject to a DSC will state the maximum charge per Unit in its prospectus. In addition, the prospectus for such Series will include the table required by Form N-1A (modified as appropriate to reflect the difference between UITs and open-end management investment companies) and a schedule setting forth the number and date of each Installment Payment, along with the duration of the collection period. The prospectus also will disclose that portfolio securities may be sold to pay an Installment Payment if distribution income is insufficient and that securities will be sold pro rata or a specific security will be designated for sale. B. Exchange Option and Rollover Option 1. Applicants request an order to the extent necessary to permit Unitholders of a Series to exchange their Units for Units of another Series (“Exchange Option”) and Unitholders of a Series that is terminating to exchange their Units for Units of a new Series of the same type (“Rollover Option”). The Exchange Option and Rollover Option would apply to all exchanges of Units sold with a front-end sales charge or DSC. 2. A Unitholder who purchases Units under the Exchange Option or Rollover Option would pay a lower sales charge than that which would be paid for the Units by a new investor. The reduced sales charge will be reasonably related to the expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the DSC program, which may include an amount that will fairly and adequately compensate the Depositor and participating underwriters and brokers for their services in providing the DSC program. 3. Pursuant to the Exchange Option, an adjustment would be made if Units of any Series are exchanged within five months of their acquisition for Units of a Series with a higher sales charge (“Five Months Adjustment”). An adjustment also would be made if Units on which a DSC is collected are exchanged for Units of a Series that imposes a front-end sales charge and the exchange occurs before the DSC collected (plus any amount collected up front on the exchanged Units) at least equals the per Unit sales charge on the acquired Units (“DSC Front-End Exchange Adjustment”). If an exchange involves either the Five Months Adjustment or the DSC Front-End Exchange Adjustment, the Unitholder would pay the greater of the reduced sales charge or an amount which, together with the sales charge already paid on the exchanged Units, equals the normal sales charge on the acquired Units on the date of the exchange. With appropriate disclosures, the Depositor may waive such payment. Further, the Depositor would reserve the right to vary the sales charge normally applicable to a Series and the charge applicable to exchanges, as well as to modify, suspend, or terminate the Exchange Option as set forth in the conditions to the application. Applicants' Legal Analysis A. DSC and Waiver of DSC 1. Section 4(2) of the Act defines a “unit investment trust” as an investment company that issues only redeemable securities. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a “redeemable security” as a security that, upon its presentation to the issuer, entitles the holder to receive approximately his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets or the cash equivalent of those assets. Rule 22c-1 under the Act requires that the price of a redeemable security issued by a registered investment company for purposes of sale, redemption or repurchase be based on the security's current net asset value (“NAV”). Because the collection of any unpaid DSC may cause a redeeming Unitholder to receive an amount less than the NAV of the redeemed Units, applicants request relief from section 2(a)(32) and rule 22c-1. 2. Section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22d-1 under the Act require a registered investment company and its principal underwriter and dealers to sell securities only at the current public offering price described in the investment company's prospectus, with the exception of sales of redeemable securities at prices that reflect scheduled variations in the sales load. Section 2(a)(35) of the Act defines the term “sales load” as the difference between the sales price and the portion of the proceeds invested by the depositor or trustee. Applicants request relief from section 2(a)(35) and section 22(d) to permit waivers, deferrals or other scheduled variations of the sales load. 3. Under section 6(c) of the Act, the Commission may exempt classes of transactions, 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. Applicants state that their proposal meets the standards of section 6(c). Applicants state that the provisions of section 22(d) are intended to prevent
(a)riskless trading in investment company securities due to backward pricing,
(b)disruption of orderly distribution by dealers selling shares at a discount, and
(c)discrimination among investors resulting from different prices charged to different investors. Applicants assert that the proposed DSC program will present none of these abuses. Applicants further state that all scheduled variations in the sales load will be disclosed in the prospectus of each Series and applied uniformly to all investors, and that applicants will comply with all the conditions set forth in rule 22d-1. 4. Section 26(a)(2)(C) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a trustee or custodian of a UIT from collecting from the trust as an expense any payment to the trust's depositor or principal underwriter. Because the Trustee's payment of the DSC to the Depositor may be deemed to be an expense under section 26(a)(2)(C), applicants request relief under section 6(c) from section 26(a)(2)(C) to the extent necessary to permit the Trustee to collect Installment Payments and disburse them to the Depositor. Applicants submit that the relief is appropriate because the DSC is more properly characterized as a sales load. B. Exchange Option and Rollover Option 1. Sections 11(a) and 11(c) of the Act prohibit any offer of exchange by a UIT for the securities of another investment company unless the terms of the offer have been approved in advance by the Commission. Applicants request an order under sections 11(a) and 11(c) for Commission approval of the Exchange Option and the Rollover Option. Applicants state that the Five Months Adjustment and the DSC Front-End Exchange Adjustment in certain circumstances are appropriate to maintain the equitable treatment of various investors in each Series. C. Net Worth Requirement 1. Section 14(a) of the Act requires that a registered investment company have $100,000 of net worth prior to making a public offering. Applicants state that each Series will comply with this requirement because the Depositor will deposit substantially more than $100,000 of debt and/or equity securities, depending on the objective of the particular Series. Applicants assert, however, that the Commission has interpreted section 14(a) as requiring that the initial capital investment in an investment company be made without any intention to dispose of the investment. Applicants state that, under this interpretation, a Series would not satisfy section 14(a) because of the Depositor's intention to sell all the Units of the Series. 2. Rule 14a-3 under the Act exempts UITs from section 14(a) if certain conditions are met, one of which is that the UIT invest only in “eligible trust securities,” as defined in the rule. Applicants state that they may not rely on rule 14a-3 because certain future Series (collectively, “Equity Series”) will invest all or a portion of their assets in equity securities or registered investment company securities pursuant to an exemptive order, which do not satisfy the definition of eligible trust securities. 3. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) of the Act to the extent necessary to exempt the Equity Series from the net worth requirement in section 14(a). Applicants state that the Series and the Depositor will comply in all respects with the requirements of rule 14a-3, except that the Equity Series will not restrict their portfolio investments to “eligible trust securities.” D. Capital Gains Distribution 1. Section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act provide that, except under limited circumstances, no registered investment company may distribute long-term gains more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1(c), under certain circumstances, exempts a UIT investing in eligible trust securities (as defined in rule 14a-3) from the requirements of rule 19b-1. Because the Equity Series do not limit their investments to eligible trust securities, however, the Equity Series will not qualify for the exemption in paragraph
(c)of rule 19b-1. Applicants therefore request an exemption under section 6(c) from section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 to the extent necessary to permit capital gains earned in connection with the sale of portfolio securities to be distributed to Unitholders along with the Equity Series' regular distributions. In all other respects, applicants will comply with section 19(b) and rule 19b-1. 2. Applicants state that their proposal meets the standards of section 6(c). Applicants assert that any sale of portfolio securities would be triggered by the need to meet Trust expenses, Installment Payments, or by redemption requests, events over which the Depositor and the Equity Series do not have control. Applicants further state that, because principal distributions must be clearly indicated in accompanying reports to Unitholders as a return of principal and will be relatively small in comparison to normal dividend distributions, there is little danger of confusion from failure to differentiate among distributions. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: A. DSC Relief and Exchange and Rollover Options 1. Whenever the Exchange Option or the Rollover Option is to be terminated or its terms are to be amended materially, any holder of a security subject to that privilege will be given prominent notice of the impending termination or amendment at least 60 days prior to the date of termination or the effective date of the amendment, provided that:
(a)No such notice need be given if the only material effect of an amendment is to reduce or eliminate the sales charge payable at the time of an exchange, to add one or more new Series eligible for the Exchange Option or the Rollover Option, or to delete a Series which has terminated; and
(b)no notice need be given if, under extraordinary circumstances, either
(i)there is a suspension of the redemption of Units of the Series under section 22(e) of the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or
(ii)a Series temporarily delays or ceases the sale of its Units because it is unable to invest amounts effectively in accordance with applicable investment objectives, policies and restrictions. 2. An investor who purchases Units under the Exchange Option or the Rollover Option will pay a lower sales charge than that which would be paid for the Units by a new investor. 3. The prospectus of each Series offering exchanges or rollovers and any sales literature or advertising that mentions the existence of the Exchange Option or Rollover Option will disclose that the Exchange Option and the Rollover Option are subject to modification, termination or suspension without notice, except in certain limited cases. 4. Any DSC imposed on a Series' Units will comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (1),
(2)and
(3)of rule 6c-10(a) under the Act. 5. Each Series offering Units subject to a DSC will include in its prospectus the disclosure required by Form N-1A relating to deferred sales charges (modified as appropriate to reflect the differences between UITs and open-end management investment companies) and a schedule setting forth the number and date of each Installment Payment. B. Net Worth Requirement 1. Applicants will comply in all respects with the requirements of rule 14a-3, except that the Equity Series will not restrict their portfolio investments to “eligible trust securities.” For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-209 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55040; File No. SR-Amex-2007-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of the Pilot Period Applicable to the Listing and Trading of Options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index January 3, 2007. 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 January 3, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Amex has filed the proposed rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 The Exchange requested the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to the listing and trading of options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (“Fund Options”). The Amex is not proposing any changes to the rule text. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex 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 May 17, 2006, the Commission approved the Amex proposal 6 to list and trade the Fund Options for a sixty-day pilot period that expired July 2, 2006 (the “Pilot”). 7 On June 30, 2006 the Commission approved a 90-day extension to the Pilot that was due to expire October 1, 2006 8 and on September 29, 2006 the Commission approved a 90-day extension to the Pilot that expired on January 2, 2007. 9 The Fund Options will continue to meet substantially all of the listing and maintenance standards in Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 915 and Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 916. For the requirements that are not satisfied, the Exchange continues to represent that sufficient mechanisms exist that would provide the Exchange with adequate surveillance and regulatory information with respect to the Fund Options. Continuation of the Pilot would permit the Exchange to continue to work with the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (“Bolsa”) to develop a surveillance sharing agreement. 6 *See* SR-Amex-2006-43. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53824 (May 17, 2006), 71 FR 30003 (May 24, 2006). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54081 (June 30, 2006), 70 FR 131 (July 10, 2006). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54553 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59561 (October 10, 2006). The Commission notes that the Amex inadvertently stated in its filing that the Pilot was to expire on December 31, 2006. Rather, the Pilot was to expire on January 2, 2007. Telephone conference between Jeffrey Burns, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Amex and Geoffrey Pemble, Special Counsel, Commission, on January 3, 2007. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot for an additional 180-days, until June 30, 2007. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act matters not related to the purpose of the Act or the administration of the Exchange. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 thereunder because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 15 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Amex has requested that the Commission waive both the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day delayed operative delay. 16 The Commission is exercising its authority to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Waiver of the five-day pre-filing and 30-day operative periods will extend the Pilot, which expired on January 2, 2007, and allow the Amex to continue in its efforts to obtain a surveillance agreement with Bolsa. The Commission notes that another self-regulatory organization recently adopted a substantially similar rule change that was effective upon filing. 17 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 18 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54876 (December 5, 2006), 71 FR 74968 (December 13, 2006) (order approving File No. SR-CBOE 2006-103). 18 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within sixty
(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. 19 19 *See* Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2007-01 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-01 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-233 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55034; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-112] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Non-option Security Trading Rules December 29, 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 December 29, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange submits this rule change filing to modify its non-option security trading rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.cboe.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 In September 2006, the Commission approved Exchange Chapters 50-55 governing the trading of non-option securities on the Exchange. 3 Also in September 2006, the Commission approved modifications 4 to the Exchange's non-option trading rules to conform those rules to aspects of Regulation NMS. 5 Thus, the Exchange currently operates a purely electronic stock trading platform that has in place certain rules required by Regulation NMS in order to qualify as a market center with protected quotations. The Exchange now proposes to further modify Chapters 50-55 in connection with the establishment of the CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”). CBSX would be a facility of the Exchange and serve as the Exchange's vehicle for trading non-option securities. CBSX would be a separate legal entity (a Delaware Limited Liability Company) owned by the Exchange and several strategic partners (the Exchange owns roughly half of CBSX). The Exchange has submitted a separate rule filing proposing to establish CBSX as a facility of the Exchange. 6 This filing changes certain portions of the Exchange's non-option trading rules to fit the market model envisioned for CBSX. These changes are described below. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54422 (September 11, 2006), 71 FR 54537 (September 15, 2006) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-21). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54526 (September 27, 2006), 71 FR 58646 (October 4, 2006) (approving SR-CBOE-2006-70). 5 17 CFR 242.600 *et seq.* 6 *See* SR-CBOE-2006-110 (filed December 26, 2006). a. Agency Function Under the current rules, DPMs on the system serve as agent for certain orders that must be processed “manually.” More specifically, in the event the Exchange is not the NBBO at the time a marketable order is received and no market-makers on the Exchange step up to match the NBBO price, the order is routed to the DPM for manual handling. As part of this manual handling, the DPM determines whether to provide price improvement for the order or whether to route it to the NBBO market for execution. During this time, and during any time that the order is routed, the DPM acts as agent for the order. The other instance in which DPMs perform an agency function is in the execution of pre-opening orders at the opening price of the primary market for stocks in which the Exchange is not the primary market. The Exchange now proposes to eliminate all agency functions for CBSX DPMs. The Exchange intends for the CBSX system (it's the same system as the current system—just a new name) to automatically route marketable non-IOC orders to other market centers when CBSX is not the NBBO and no market-makers have stepped up to match the NBBO. This routing logic is contained in the CBSX trade engine, and CBSX would use an unaffiliated routing broker pursuant to an agreement to transmit orders on CBSX's behalf to better-priced protected quotations consistent with Regulation NMS. The handling and routing would all be done electronically by the CBSX system without any manual intervention. As far as the opening, the Exchange proposes to eliminate a DPM's agency obligation to manually execute orders in connection with the opening print on the primary market by changing the time in which CBSX will open. CBSX would enter an open state at 8:15 a.m. Chicago time (before the primary market openings). The opening would be automatically performed by the system. That is, the CBSX system would automatically execute pre-opening orders at a price that allows the greatest number of pre-opening shares to trade. This would allow customers that are interested in an opening execution on CBSX to obtain one without CBSX needing to obligate DPMs to guarantee the opening price on the primary market. b. CBSX Floor Post The current stock trading system is purely electronic. CBSX also would be purely electronic in that all trades on CBSX must be effected electronically; however, CBSX would utilize a space on the Exchange's trading floor for price discovery purposes (the “CBSX Floor Post”). CBSX DPMs will be required to staff the CBSX Floor Post and respond to price discovery inquiries from brokers. All orders entered at the CBSX Floor Post would be handled and executed in the exact same manner as orders entered from any other location. The CBSX Floor Post would be located near the Exchange's index options pits in a location that is generally isolated from the equity options trading posts. The Exchange is hopeful that the CBSX Floor Post would be a valuable resource for CBOE floor brokers to inquire about depth of liquidity on CBSX ( *e.g.* , CBOE brokers often represent complex orders that contain a stock component and could seek to execute the stock component on CBSX). c. Order Types The Exchange also proposes to adopt several new order types in connection with the CBSX launch. Specifically, CBSX would offer Reserve Orders, Middle Market Cross Orders, Cross Only Orders, and Cross and Sweep Orders. A Reserve Order is a limit order in which the order originator designates a portion of the order for display and dissemination (the “display amount”) and designates a portion of the order in “reserve.” A reserve portion is not displayed but is available for execution against incoming orders. Reserve Orders would be last in priority (except that most contingency orders are behind Reserve Orders in priority). Between Reserve Orders at the same price, priority would be afforded utilizing the matching algorithm in effect for the stock. If, after an execution against a Reserve Order, a quantity remains on the Reserve Order, the quote would be refreshed to disseminate the display amount while any remaining balance would be retained in reserve. A Middle Market Cross Order is an order submitted to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO. It must always be submitted with a contra order for the same size and could be entered only when the bid price for the stock is $1 or greater. Further, these orders could be executed in increments as small as 1/2 the minimum quoting increment established under CBSX rules. If a Middle Market Cross Order is submitted after CBSX is open but before other markets are open ( *e.g.* , 8:20 a.m. Chicago time) the order would execute at the midpoint of the best bid and offer among market centers that are open and disseminating quotes (or just the CBSX midpoint if CBSX were the only market center open). A member would be prohibited from entering a Middle Market Cross Order as principal buyer (seller) if the NBBO spread is one cent wide and that member was an agent for any customer order resting at the prevailing NBBO bid (offer). This provision is meant to preclude a member from trading as principal at a price that is less than one cent better than a price expressed by a customer of that member to which the member has a fiduciary obligation. A Cross Only Order is an order that may only be executed against another Cross Only Order for the same size and price. These orders could be entered only at or between the NBBO, and when entered at the CBSX BBO, only when the terms of the orders meet the crossing parameters set forth in proposed CBSX Rule 52.11 relating to priority for crosses at the CBSX's disseminated market price. A Cross and Sweep Order is an order that is priced outside of the NBBO and/or the BBO where the applicable side of the CBSX Book is satisfied by the Cross and Sweep Order and any disseminated better priced protected quotations at away market centers are swept with ISOs by the CBSX System. Any remaining balance on a partially executed Cross and Sweep Order would be cancelled by the CBSX System. CBOE also proposes to modify the manner in which Stop Orders (including Stop Limit Orders) are handled. Current rules provide that a stop buy
(sell)order is elected when the stock trades or is bid (offered) at or above (below) the stop price. As proposed, CBSX would handle stop orders so that a stop buy
(sell)order is elected only when the stock trades at or above (below) the stop price on the primary market for the stock. The change is consistent with the desires of CBSX customers. d. Order Routing Rule 52.6 (Processing of Round-Lot Orders) is being modified to add additional descriptive language regarding transmission of ISOs to other market centers on behalf of marketable orders received by CBSX. This language compliments language already in place regarding ISO routing in Rule 52.7. e. Odd Lots CBSX would process odd lots differently than provided for under current rules. More specifically, CBSX proposes to execute odd lots at the best price being quoted by CBSX Market-Makers at the time of receipt. A limit odd-lot order would execute only once it became marketable against a CBSX Market-Maker quote/order. Further, the odd-lot portion of a mixed lot would execute as described above while the round-lot portion of the mixed lot would execute as if it were received by the system as a round lot. f. Market-Makers CBSX Market-Makers will function in a manner similar to what is provided by the current rules with a few changes. First, because CBSX would have a location on the Exchange trading floor for price discovery, CBSX DPMs
(LMMs)would be required to maintain staffing at that post in order to handle price discovery inquiries. CBSX Remote Market-Makers, however, would be expected to operate in a remote capacity (thus the name Remote Market-Maker). Second, CBSX anticipates adopting a fee structure that would contemplate discounted fees for CBSX Market-Makers that meet certain competitive quoting thresholds. These parameters would be set forth in a separate rule filing. In connection with these parameters, CBOE proposes to adopt a provision in Rule 53.55 stating that routine failure to qualify for the thresholds set forth in the fee incentive program could subject a CBSX DPM to remedial action by CBSX under that rule. Lastly, CBOE has submitted as separate rule filings changes to Rules 53.53 and 53.54 to allow CBSX to allocate securities to anticipated CBSX DPMs in advance of the launch of the CBSX platform. 7 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 54792 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 68659 (November 27, 2006), and 54831 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 70814 (December 6, 2006). g. Section 11(a) Section 11(a) of the Act 8 prohibits a member of a national securities exchange from effecting transactions on that exchange for his own account, the account of an associated person, or an account over which he or his associated persons exercise investment discretion (collectively, the “covered accounts”) unless an exception applies. Congress intended Section 11(a) to address concerns about special time and place advantages that floor-based members of an exchange might have over persons who were not on the floor—such as the ability to “execute decisions faster than public investors.” 9 Rule 11a2-2(T) under the Act 10 provides exchange members with an exception to the trading prohibition. 11 8 15 U.S.C. 78k(a). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14563 (March 14, 1978), 43 FR 11542 (March 17, 1978) (“1978 Release I”); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14713 (April 27, 1978), 43 FR 18557, 18588 (May 1, 1978) (“1978 Release II”); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 15533 (January 29, 1979), 44 FR 6084, 6092 (January 31, 1979) (“1979 Release”). The 1978 and 1979 Releases cite the House Report at 54-57. 10 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T). 11 Known as the “effect versus execute” rule, Rule 11a2-2(T) permits an exchange member, subject to certain conditions, to effect a transaction for a covered account by arranging for an unaffiliated member to execute the transaction on the exchange floor. To comply with the rule's conditions, a member:
(1)Must transmit the order from off the exchange floor;
(2)may not participate in the execution of the transaction once it has been transmitted to the member performing the execution;
(3)may not be affiliated with the executing member; and
(4)with respect to an account over which the member has investment discretion, neither the member nor his associated person may retain any compensation in connection with effecting the transaction without express written consent from the person authorized to transact business for the account in accordance with the rule. The Exchange believes that most orders entered into CBSX would qualify for Rule 11a2-2(T) for the same reasons that orders submitted to all-electronic exchanges typically qualify for Rule 11a2-2(T)—namely, because as an electronic marketplace where all orders must be entered into the system for execution and handling, there really is no “floor.” However, to the extent members seeking to electronically enter orders while positioned at the CBSX Floor Post might not qualify under Rule 11a2-2(T), the Exchange believes that such members will, by default, qualify for the exemption contained in paragraph
(g)of Section 11(a), which exemption essentially provides that members must yield priority to all non-members. Orders entered at the CBSX Floor Post based on price discovery discussions with the CBSX DPM would certainly be entered as cross orders. The Exchange believes that all of the CBSX cross-order types would be consistent with the notion of yielding to existing interest at the crossing price. As described above, Middle Market Cross Orders are priced where there is no existing interest and therefore no interest to yield to. Cross Only orders would cancel if any interest in the system could trade with any part of the cross transaction, and Cross and Sweep Orders would satisfy all interest at the cross price prior to effecting the cross trade. The Exchange notes that a feature contained in proposed Rule 52.11 that would allow a qualifying cross transaction to establish priority over existing bids/offers on the CBSX Book would not be enabled until functionality is developed that would allow the member a choice as to whether to apply the priority feature of Rule 52.11 in connection with any of the CBSX cross-order types. 12 Once that choice is in place, a member seeking to qualify under paragraph
(g)of Rule 11a2-2(T) could effect a cross without the priority feature of Rule 52.11 and a member that is exempt from Section 11(a) for reasons other than paragraph
(g)could effect a cross with the priority feature of Rule 52.11. 12 Rule 52.11 provides that a CBSX Trader that wishes to cross two original orders or to facilitate an original order at the established bid or offer irrespective of existing interest at such bid/offer may do so provided the cross transaction:
(1)Is for at least 5,000 shares;
(2)is for a principal amount of at least $100,000; and
(3)is greater in size than any single public customer order resting on the CBSX Book at the proposed cross price. h. ITS All rules regarding the Intermarket Trading System are being deleted as the Exchange anticipates using private linkages under the CBSX platform and because the ITS Plan will terminate at the commencement of the compliance date for Regulation NMS in February 2007. i. Elimination of Unnecessary Rules Certain existing rules are being eliminated because the Exchange does not believe that they are necessary or relevant to the operation and regulation of the CBSX platform. Paragraph
(a)of Rule 52.5 is being eliminated because it merely describes order maintenance functionality available to users and that sort of descriptive language is not normally contained in exchange rules. Paragraph
(b)of Rule 52.5 is being eliminated because the Exchange does not want to prohibit market participants from resting buy and sell orders simultaneously in the same security. Rule 53.3(a)(2) is being eliminated because the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to limit a member's ability to fill a customer order only pursuant to the CBSX crossing rule (Rule 52.11). Rule 53.7 is being eliminated because the Exchange does not contemplate trading SuperShares at this time. Rule 53.52 is being eliminated because CBSX would not utilize (and does not need) the concept of individual DPM Designees (DPM firms are the recognized traders). Finally, Rule 53.70 is being eliminated because CBSX would not utilize (and does not need) the concept of Clearing Firm Brokers. j. Inserting “CBSX” The proposed rule change replaces all references to the “STOC” system or platform with “CBSX” and also replaces references to various Exchange committees with “CBSX.” k. Conclusion In conclusion, the Exchange believes that CBSX would provide a fast and competitive stock trading platform that would be attractive to customers. The Exchange anticipates launching CBSX concurrent with the start of the compliance date for Regulation NMS. Accordingly, the Exchange requests that the proposed rule change not take effect or become operative until February 5, 2007. The Exchange notes that existing Chapters 50-55 are approved as a pilot which terminates in connection with the compliance dates for Regulation NMS. The Exchange hopes approval of these rule changes would allow a seamless migration to CBSX at that time. 2. Statutory Basis CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 13 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 14 that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or
(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
(A)by order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B)institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-112 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-CBOE-2006-112. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-112 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-208 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55038; File No. SR-NASD-2005-079] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 4 to Revise Rule 10322 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure Pertaining to Subpoenas and the Power to Direct Appearances January 3, 2007. I. Introduction On June 17, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to revise Rule 10322 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (the “Code”), which pertains to subpoenas and the power to direct appearances. On July 13, 2005, the Commission published for comment the proposed rule change in the **Federal Register.** 3 The Commission received twelve comments on the proposal. 4 On March 29, 2006, May 12, 2006, and July 7, 2006, NASD submitted Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, to the proposed rule change. The Commission published the proposed rule change, as amended, for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 18, 2006. 5 The Commission received twenty-six comment letters on the proposal, as amended. 6 On November 30, 2006, NASD submitted Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change. 7 This notice and order solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 4 and approves the proposal, as amended, on an accelerated basis. The text of the proposed rule change is available at www.nasd.com, at the principal offices of NASD, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51981 (July 6, 2005), 70 FR 40411 (July 13, 2005). 4 Comment letters were submitted by Richard Skora, dated July 12, 2005; Seth E. Lipner, Deutsch & Lipner, dated July 13, 2005; Steve Buchwalter, Law Offices of Steve A. Buchwalter, P.C., dated July 13, 2005; Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated July 19, 2005; Dennis M. Pape, dated July 20, 2005; Al Van Kampen, Rohde & Van Kampen PLLC, dated July 25, 2005; Phil Cutler, Cutler Nylander & Hayton, dated August 1, 2005; Avery B. Goodman, A.B. Goodman Law Firm, Ltd., dated August 1, 2005 and August 2, 2005; Jill Gross, Director, Barbara Black, Director, and Richard Downey, Student Intern, Pace Investor Rights Project, dated August 2, 2005; Tim Canning, dated August 3, 2005; and Rosemary J. Shockman, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated August 4, 2005. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54134 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 40762 (July 18, 2006). 6 Comment letters were submitted by Gary M. Berne, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C., dated April 13, 2006 (“Berne”); Robert S. Banks, Jr., President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated April 28, 2006 (“PIABA 1”); Bryan Lantagne, Chair, Broker-Dealer Arbitration Project Group, North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., dated May 1, 2006 (“NASAA”); Martin L. Feinberg, dated May 5, 2006 (“Feinberg 1”); Seth E. Lipner, Deutsch Lipner, dated July 17, 2006 (“Lipner 1”); Philip M. Aidikoff, Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated July 19, 2006 (“Aidikoff”); Martin L. Feinberg, dated July 19, 2006 (“Feinberg 2”); Thomas C. Wagner, VanDeusen & Wagner LLC, dated July 19, 2006 (“Wagner 1”); Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated July 21, 2006 (“Caruso”); Joseph C. Korsak, dated July 21, 2006 (“Korsak”); Herbert E. Pounds, Jr., dated July 21, 2006 (“Pounds”); John Miller, dated July 21, 2006 (“Miller”); Richard M. Layne, Layne Lewis LLP, dated July 21, 2006 (“Layne”); Sarah G. Anderson, dated July 21, 2006 (“Anderson”); Jay Salamon, dated July 21, 2006 (“Salamon”); Steph D. M [sic], dated July 21, 2006 (“Steph M”); Thomas C. Wagner, VanDeusen Wagner LLC, dated July 21, 2006 (“Wagner 2”); W. Scott Greco, Greco & Greco, P.C., dated July 21, 2006 (“Greco”); Carl J. Carlson, Carlson & Dennett, P.S., dated July 24, 2006 (“Carlson”); Laurence S. Schultz, Driggers, Schultz & Herbst, P.C., dated July 28, 2006 (“Schultz”); Ryan P. Smith, Vice President, Wachovia Securities, dated August 7, 2006 (“Wachovia”); Robert S. Banks, Jr., President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated August 14, 2006 (“PIABA 2”); Jim Parker, Johnson, Rial & Parker, P.C., dated September 7, 2006 (“Parker”); Alan S. Brodherson, Law Offices of Alan S. Brodherson, dated November 20, 2006 (“Brodherson”); Seth E. Lipner, Deutsch Lipner, dated December 6, 2006 (“Lipner 2”); and Steven B. Caruso, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated December 7, 2006 (“PIABA 3”). 7 The PIABA 3 and Lipner 2 letters were received by the Commission after the submission of Amendment No. 4 by NASD. Both commenters noted NASD's submission of Amendment No. 4 and recommended expedited approval of the proposal, with one commenter stating “the proposed revisions will both protect public investors and represent a significant step toward reducing the discovery abuses that permeate the arbitration process.” (PIABA 3). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change In the initial rule filing, NASD proposed to revise Rule 10322 of the Code to provide for a 10-day notice requirement before a party issues a subpoena to a non-party for pre-hearing discovery. 8 In addition, NASD proposed clarifying the requirements regarding the service of subpoenas by specifying that a party that issues a subpoena must serve a copy of the subpoena to all parties and the entity receiving the subpoena on the same day. 8 *See infra* note 3. In Amendment No. 1, NASD proposed to allow only arbitrators to issue subpoenas for both parties and non-parties, whether for discovery or for appearance at a hearing. In Amendment No. 2, NASD clarified the process for issuing a subpoena to both parties and non-parties. In Amendment No. 3, NASD clarified that, in most cases, a public arbitrator will rule on all motions requesting a subpoena. 9 9 *See infra* note 5. In Amendment No. 4, NASD responded to comments on Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and amended the proposed rule change to authorize the arbitration panel to determine the amount of costs incurred as a result of subpoenaed documents and by whom such costs should be borne. NASD also amended the proposed rule change to provide that the party requesting the subpoena may respond to objections within 10 calendar days of receipt of the objections. In addition, NASD clarified that certain references to days are references to calendar days. III. Summary of Comments Received and NASD Response In Amendment No. 4, NASD responded to comments on the amended proposal. Who Should Pay for Subpoenaed Documents NASD noted that more than half of the comments discussed which party should be responsible for the costs associated with the production of documents obtained in response to a subpoena. 10 Specifically, NASD stated that commenters:
(1)Expressed the view that the proposal would inappropriately require a party requesting documents from another party to be responsible for the costs associated with the document production,
(2)argued that the costs associated with the production of any documents, including subpoenaed documents, should be determined and assessed by the panel in its award,
(3)stated that treating subpoenaed documents differently from other discovery-related documents could lead to gamesmanship, confusion, and delay in the discovery process, and
(4)indicated that this aspect of the proposal would pose a considerable burden on public customers and could prevent them from adequately preparing their cases if they are unable to reimburse the other party for copies of subpoenaed documents. 10 *See* Anderson, Carlson, Caruso, Feinberg 1 and 2, Greco, Korsak, Layne, Miller, PIABA 2, Pounds, Salamon, Schultz, Steph M, and Wagner 2. NASD agreed that the panel should have the authority to determine the amount of costs incurred as a result of subpoenaed documents and by whom such costs should be borne. Therefore, NASD proposed in Amendment No. 4 to delete the following sentence from proposed Rule 10322(e): “The party requesting the documents shall be responsible for the reasonable costs associated with the production of the copies.” NASD noted that because Rules 10205(c) and 10332(c) of the Code already provide arbitrators with authority to make cost determinations, it is NASD's belief that this issue does not need to be further addressed by the proposal. Whether Counsel Should be Able to Issue Subpoenas NASD noted that four commenters objected to the proposal to limit the power to issue subpoenas to arbitrators. 11 Specifically, NASD stated commenters:
(1)Noted that they had not experienced any significant problems with the current rule (which also allows counsel of record to issue subpoenas as provided by law), and stated that there was no reason to revise the rule,
(2)expressed the view that limiting to arbitrators the authority to issue subpoenas would result in additional delays, costs, and gamesmanship in the discovery process, and
(3)speculated that arbitrators who tire of counsel making numerous requests for subpoenas may capriciously deny the issuance of a subpoena merely to limit the amount of time spent on discovery issues. 11 *See* Berne, Brodherson, Parker, and Wachovia. NASD disagreed with these comments, stating it believes that providing arbitrators with greater control over the issuance of subpoenas will help to protect investors, associated persons, and other parties from abuse in the discovery process. NASD also stated that the establishment of a uniform, nationwide rule will reduce potential confusion for parties and their counsel regarding whether they have the ability to issue subpoenas, minimize gamesmanship in the subpoena process, and make the rule easier to administer. Which Arbitrators Should Have Authority to Decide Subpoena Requests NASD noted that two commenters
(1)stated that only public arbitrators should have the authority to decide subpoena requests and that non-public arbitrators should not be involved in resolving discovery issues in those cases where one of the parties is a public customer, and
(2)suggested that, at the very least, a non-public arbitrator should be able to decide a subpoena request only if all parties agree. 12 12 *See* NASAA and PIABA 1. NASD stated that the rule, as proposed, is in accordance with the suggestions made by these commenters and affirmed that the arbitrator ruling on a motion requesting a subpoena will be a public arbitrator unless a customer previously consented to a non-standard panel composition. 13 13 * See* Rule 10308(b)(1). Necessity of Motions for Subpoenas NASD noted that two commenters asserted that parties should not be required to include a motion as part of a subpoena request, and indicated that this would add unnecessary complexity and delay to the discovery process. 14 NASD disagreed, stating it believes that requiring a motion would not place a significant burden on parties and may provide a benefit to the panel. 14 *See* Berne and PIABA 1. Automatic Exchange of Subpoenaed Documents NASD noted that two commenters suggested revising the proposal to require or allow for the automatic exchange of documents received in response to all subpoenas. 15 NASD disagreed, stating that another party may not want such documents or may not wish to be potentially responsible for the costs associated with the production of such documents. NASD also noted that the proposal does not limit the ability of the parties to agree to automatically exchange all documents received in response to subpoenas. 15 *See* Feinberg 1 and 2, and Salamon. Time Frame for Ruling on Subpoena Requests NASD noted that one commenter suggested revising the proposal to require the panel to rule on all subpoena motions within 10 days to ensure that parties are able to conduct discovery in a timely and orderly manner. 16 NASD disagreed, stating that the proposal would require the panel to rule promptly on a motion for a subpoena. NASD also indicated it does not believe that it is appropriate to establish a specific time frame within which the panel must rule on a subpoena request, particularly because there may be occasions when a panel will need to consider several complex motions at the same time. 16 *See* Wachovia letter. Clarifications to the Proposed Rule Change NASD noted that two commenters suggested clarifying revisions to proposed Rule 10322(c). 17 One commenter stated that the rule is potentially ambiguous regarding the time frame during which an arbitrator should rule on the issuance and scope of a subpoena. 18 In this commenter's view the proposal could be read to mean that an arbitrator is required to rule promptly and not consider any objections that have been raised to a subpoena. The other commenter suggested that, to avoid confusion, the rule should contain a time period within which a party must respond to any objections to its proposed subpoena. 19 This commenter also suggested amending paragraphs
(c)and
(e)of proposed Rule 10322 to clarify whether the time periods in those paragraphs are based on calendar or business days. 17 *See* Caruso and Feinberg 2. 18 *See* Feinberg 2. 19 *See* Caruso. To reduce any potential ambiguities in the rule, NASD proposed in Amendment No. 4 to amend the proposed rule change to provide that the party that requested the subpoena may respond to objections within 10 calendar days of receipt of the objections and to clarify certain references to days are references to calendar days. 20 20 NASD also noted that the pending revisions to the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes would clarify that the term “day” means calendar day, except as otherwise provided. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51856 (June 15, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-158), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) and 51857 (June 15, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-011), 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005). Conforming the Proposal with the Federal Arbitration Act NASD noted that one commenter stated that the proposed rule should be revised to conform to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which the commenter states requires a majority of the arbitrators to sign a subpoena. 21 NASD responded that because the proposal would allow only arbitrators to issue subpoenas, it would provide non-parties with more protection than current Rule 103222. NASD also stated it believes that subpoenas issued by a single arbitrator are valid and noted that it has received few, if any, complaints regarding the validity of such subpoenas from participants in the NASD forum. 21 *See* Feinberg 1 and 2. NASD also noted that commenter expressed the view that the proposal, under the FAA, is unwieldy with respect to the service of subpoenas. The commenter stated that the FAA provides that an arbitration subpoena “shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court.” The commenter asserted that federal courts have interpreted this provision to require the personal service of an arbitral subpoena. Consequently, the commenter contended that, under the FAA, the proposal would require personal service of all subpoenas issued in NASD's forum. In response, NASD pointed out that before a party may participate in NASD's arbitral forum, it must submit a Uniform Submission Agreement in which the party agrees to abide by the Code. 22 NASD stated that under the Code, service can be effectuated by a variety of methods, including mail, overnight mail service, hand delivery, and facsimile. 23 Citing *Volt Information Sciences, Inc.* v. *Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University* , 489 U.S. 468 (1989), NASD also noted that the Supreme Court has found that the FAA does not prevent the enforcement of arbitration agreements that contain different rules than those set forth in the FAA. NASD indicated it believes that service under the proposal can be accomplished by any of the various methods provided for in the Code rather than personal service exclusively. 22 The Uniform Submission Agreement provides, “The undersigned parties hereby submit the present matter in controversy, as set forth in the attached statement of claim, answers, and all related counterclaims and/or third-party claims which may be asserted, to arbitration in accordance with the Constitution, By-Laws, Rules, Regulations, and/or Code of Arbitration Procedure of the sponsoring organization.” 23 *See* NASD Rule 10314(c). Issues Beyond the Scope of the Proposed Rule Change Finally, NASD noted that two commenters raised issues that are beyond the scope of the proposed rule change. One commenter expressed views related to the composition of arbitration panels and the definition of public arbitrator. 24 The other commenter suggested revisions to the Code regarding the time period within which a panel must be appointed. 25 24 *See* NASAA. 25 *See* Wachovia. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the Exchange 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 e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-079 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-079. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-079 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. V. Discussion and Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NASD, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) 26 of the Exchange Act. 27 Section 15A(b)(6) requires, among other things, that NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to accomplish these ends by permitting only arbitrators to issues subpoenas and by making the arbitration subpoena process more orderly and efficient. 26 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). 27 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 4 The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published for comment in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Amendment No. 4 amends the proposed rule change to authorize the arbitration panel to determine the amount of costs incurred as a result of subpoenaed documents and by whom such costs should be borne. Amendment No. 4 also provides that the party that requested the subpoena may respond to objections within 10 calendar days of receipt of the objections. In addition, Amendment No. 4 amends the proposed rule change to clarify that certain references to days are references to calendar days. The Commission anticipates that these changes will provide for greater clarity with respect to the subpoena process and will provide for a more equitable allocation of costs concerning subpoena documents. Accordingly, the Commission finds that accelerated approval of Amendment No. 4 is appropriate. VI. Conclusions *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 28 that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NASD-2005-079), be, and hereby is, approved. 28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 29 29 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-207 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55041; File No. SR-NSX-2006-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify a Fee Schedule for Transactions Executed Through NSX BLADE SM and To Modify a Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions January 4, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2006, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” 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 substantially by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(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 from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to implement a liquidity provider rebate and liquidity taker fee for transactions executed in Tape A and Tape B securities through NSX BLADE SM (“NSX BLADE”), the Exchange's new trading system, and to modify its Fee Schedule applicable to transactions executed in Tape C securities through NSX BLADE. 5 The Exchange also proposes corresponding changes to the Exchange's ITS Transactions Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is is available at *www.nsx.com/RulesFilings.asp,* NSX, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 Securities are being transitioned from the Exchange's legacy system, National Securities Trading System (“NSTS”) to NSX BLADE. Securities will only be traded on one system; once transitioned, that security will only be traded on NSX BLADE. As of December 22, 2006, all Tape C securities have been transitioned to NSX BLADE, and the Exchange anticipates that all Tape A and Tape B securities will be transitioned to NSX BLADE in mid-January 2007. Until transitioned, Tape A and Tape B securities will continue to be traded on NSTS exclusively. *See* e-mail from Lori A. Ragus, Senior Regulatory Counsel, NSX, to Joseph P. Morra, Special Counsel, SEC, dated December 22, 2006. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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 has created NSX BLADE, a new trading platform that utilizes a strict price/time priority system as the ultimate replacement for the Exchange's current system, NSTS. 6 In connection with the new trading platform, the Exchange filed a rule change proposing new trading rules for NSX BLADE. 7 The Exchange also amended its rules to add a Chapter XVI to set forth, in its own chapter, rules relating to fees, dues, assessments and a tape rebate program. The rule change adding Chapter XVI was filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, which rendered it effective upon filing. 8 6 *See* footnote 5, *supra.* 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52836 (September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08) (approval order). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54194 (July 24, 2006), 71 FR 43258 (July 31, 2006)(SR-NSX-2006-10). SR-NSX-2006-10 was effective upon filing on July 13, 2006. Rule 16.3 provides that the new Chapter XVI would become effective upon written notice by the Exchange to the ETP Holders. Notice was provided declaring Chapter XVI effective on October 2 and 19, 2006 respecting ITS transactions and transactions in NSX BLADE, respectively. In the instant rule filing, the Exchange is filing a proposed Fee Schedule under Rule 16.1(a) and 16.1(c) of Chapter XVI for executions in Tape A, B and C securities through NSX BLADE. 9 The proposed Fee Schedule provides for an execution fee for removing liquidity from NSX BLADE, and a rebate for adding liquidity into NSX BLADE, of $0.0030 per share executed. Thus, ETP Holders taking liquidity against an order in the NSX BLADE System will be charged a fee of $0.0030 per share executed, and ETP Holders providing liquidity into the NSX BLADE System will be paid a rebate of $0.0030 per share executed. The current Fee Schedule provides a rebate and execution fee for transactions only in Tape C securities, whereas this proposed Fee Schedule seeks to expand the rebate and execution fee to include all securities classified as Tape A, B or C securities. In addition, the proposed Fee Schedule modifies the liquidity provider fee paid under the current Fee Schedule from a scaled rebate for Tape C securities of $0.0027 to $0.0028 per share executed to a flat fee of $0.0030 per share executed. 9 As set forth in SR-NSX-2006-10, the Exchange proposed to maintain a separate fee schedule that contains its current fees, dues and other charges, instead of including all of its specific fees, dues and charges in the text of its rules, as it formerly did prior to the adoption of Chapter XVI. The Exchange also is proposing corresponding changes to the Exchange's ITS Transactions Fee Schedule, which is applicable to transactions pursuant to the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Communications Linkage or the Intermarket Trading System Plan (hereinafter the “ITS Plans”). With the implementation of an execution fee for transactions executed through NSX BLADE, the Exchange is proposing to apply the same fee to transactions executed pursuant to the ITS Plans. The Exchange believes that this would eliminate the potential for preferential treatment to those accessing the Exchange pursuant to the ITS Plans, instead of executing transactions directly through NSX BLADE. Moreover, the Exchange is proposing a technical and corresponding change to the Exchange's ITS Transactions Fee Schedule to delete the liquidity provider rebate fee because the ITS transactions only take liquidity from the Exchange, but cannot provide liquidity. The Exchange states that all orders to NSX BLADE or NSTS pursuant to the ITS Plans are immediate or cancel orders and are not capable of being posted. As such, these orders do not provide liquidity, and cannot earn a liquidity provider fee. The Exchange is in the process of phasing in NSX BLADE. NSX BLADE was launched on October 23, 2006, with Tape C securities currently being phased into NSX BLADE from NSTS. Once all Tape C securities have been transitioned to NSX BLADE, the Exchange is planning to transition all Tape A and Tape B securities at one time. 10 10 NSX plans to monitor this implementation and adjust the schedule as needed to maintain an orderly transition. During this transitional period of phasing in various securities to NSX BLADE, the Exchange is operating both NSTS and NSX BLADE. Accordingly, the Exchange is operating under two sets of rules during this phase-in period. All transactions in the NSTS System are operating under the rules pertaining to NSTS (old Rule 11.9 (National Securities Trading System) and old Rule 11.10 (National Securities Trading System Fees) and any associated Fee Schedule) while all transactions in NSX BLADE are operating under the NSX BLADE trading rules approved in SR-NSX-2006-08 and the new fee rules in Chapter XVI. 11 When the phase-in system has expired and NSTS is no longer operational, old Rules 11.9 and 11.10 will be extinguished. The Exchange has issued a Notice to ETP Holders to advise them of the different trading systems and rules and fees applicable to each, 12 and will issue a Notice advising them of the new Fee Schedules filed with this rule change. 11 The ITS Transactions Fee Schedule is applicable to any transaction pursuant to the ITS Plans, regardless whether the transaction was executed through NSTS or NSX BLADE. 12 *See* NSX Regulatory Circular 06-011 issued on October 19, 2006. Pursuant to newly approved CHX Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will “provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges of the Exchange.” The Exchange will advise ETP Holders using the Exchange of these fees through the Exchange's Web site. In addition, the ETP Holders will, simultaneous with the filing, be notified through the issuance of a Regulatory Circular of the new Fee Schedules. The Exchange believes that the fees have 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. 13 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 15 in particular, regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among exchange members and other persons using exchange facilities. 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. 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) of the Act 16 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 17 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by NSX. 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. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii). 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NSX-2006-17 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2006-17. 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 offices of NSX. 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-2006-17 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 4 8 [FR Doc. E7-236 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55035; File No. SR-ODD-2006-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Accelerated Delivery of Supplement to the Options Disclosure Document Reflecting Certain Changes to Disclosure Regarding U.S. Dollar-Denominated Foreign Currency Options December 29, 2006. On December 8, 2006, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 five preliminary copies of a supplement to its options disclosure document (“ODD”) reflecting certain changes to disclosure regarding U.S. dollar-denominated foreign currency options (“FCOs”). 2 On December 29, 2006, the OCC submitted to the Commission five definitive copies of the supplement. 3 1 17 CFR 240.9b-1. 2 *See* letter from William H. Navin, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, OCC, to Elizabeth King, Associate Director, and Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated December 7, 2006. 3 *See* letter from Jean M. Cawley, First Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, OCC, to Elizabeth King, Associate Director, and Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated December 29, 2006. The ODD currently contains general disclosures on the characteristics and risks of trading standardized options. Recently, an options exchange amended its rules to permit the listing and trading of FCOs on the British pound and the Euro. 4 The proposed supplement to the ODD accommodates this change by providing additional disclosure regarding FCOs. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-54989 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78506 (December 29, 2006) (approving File No. SR-Phlx-2006-34). Specifically, the proposed supplement to the ODD updates disclosure regarding the calculation of exercise prices and premiums for FCOs. The proposed supplement also enhances disclosure regarding cash-settlement of FCOs, including the calculation of cash settlement amounts and exercise settlement values. Finally, the proposed supplement updates disclosure in the ODD regarding the expiration of FCOs. 5 The proposed supplement is intended to be read in conjunction with the more general ODD, which, as described above, discusses the characteristics and risks of options generally. 5 The Commission notes that the options markets must continue to ensure that the ODD is in compliance with the requirements of Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i), including when future changes regarding FCOs are made. Any future changes to the rules of the options markets concerning FCOs would need to be submitted to the Commission under Section 19(b) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act 6 provides that an options market must file five copies of an amendment or supplement to the ODD with the Commission at least 30 days prior to the date definitive copies are furnished to customers, unless the Commission determines otherwise, having due regard to the adequacy of information disclosed and the public interest and protection of investors. 7 In addition, five copies of the definitive ODD, as amended or supplemented, must be filed with the Commission not later than the date the amendment or supplement, or the amended options disclosure document, is furnished to customers. The Commission has reviewed the proposed supplement and finds, having due regard to the adequacy of information disclosed and the public interest and protection of investors, that the proposed supplement may be furnished to customers as of the date of this order. 6 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i). 7 This provision permits the Commission to shorten or lengthen the period of time which must elapse before definitive copies may be furnished to customers. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act, 8 that definitive copies of the proposed supplement to the ODD (SR-ODD-2006-01), reflecting changes to disclosure regarding U.S. dollar-denominated foreign currency options, may be furnished to customers as of the date of this order. 8 17 CFR 240.9b-1. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(39). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-231 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55027; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Assignments in Options Based on Root Symbol December 29, 2006. I. Introduction On August 18, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Phlx Rule 507, “Application for Assignment in Streaming Quote Options.” Specifically, Phlx proposes to adopt new Commentary .01 to Phlx Rule 507, which would authorize the Exchange's Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee (“OAESC”), 3 to assign trading privileges in options to Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”) 4 and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) 5 by “root symbol” (as defined more fully below), such that an SQT or RSQT may be assigned in only certain series of an option. On November 21, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 29, 2006. 6 The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change. 7 This order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Phlx By-Law Article X, Section 10-7(a). *See also* Phlx Rule 500. 4 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A). 5 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54807 (November 21, 2006), 71 FR 69173. 7 *See* letter to Nancy Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Christopher Nagy, Chair, SIFMA Options Committee (“SIFMA”), dated December 20, 2006. SIFMA does not directly oppose Phlx's quote mitigation proposal discussed herein, but instead favors the adoption of a comprehensive industry-wide quote mitigation strategy. Specifically, SIFMA believes that the adoption of an industry-wide, uniform “holdback timer” proposal would provide the most effective means of quote mitigation. Although, SIFMA expressed concern that a lack of uniformity among quote mitigation strategies implemented by the various options exchanges may impose a burden on member firms and result in confusion among market participants, SIFMA does not specifically oppose the adoption of the quote mitigation proposal approved by this order. Additional concerns raised in SIFMA's December 20, 2006 comment letter relating to other proposed rule changes filed by the options exchanges will be more fully addressed in any subsequent releases issued by the Commission. II. Description of the Proposal The purpose of the proposed rule change is to mitigate quote traffic and address quote capacity issues by reducing the number of quotations required to be submitted on the Exchange. The proposal would permit the OAESC to assign trading privileges to SQTs and RSQTs, upon their request, only in specific series of a particular option based on the “root symbol” of the series, instead of assigning trading privileges in all series of such option. Thus, as described below, SQTs and RSQTs would be required to submit quotations in fewer series. Phlx Rule 507 currently provides the solicitation, application and review process to be followed by the OAESC when an SQT or RSQT submits an application for assignment in an option. Under Phlx Rule 507, an application for assignment must be submitted in writing to the Exchange's designated staff and would be required to include, at a minimum, the name of the SQT or RSQT applicant and written verification from the Exchange's Membership Services Department that such SQT or RSQT applicant is qualified as a ROT. The Exchange proposes to permit SQT and RSQT applicants to request assignment in an option by “root symbol.” Today, all assignments are by overlying option, meaning the SQT and RSQT applicants that are assigned in a particular option are assigned in all series of such option. Therefore, the calculation of the percentage of series required to be quoted is based on every series listed in such option, thus requiring SQTs and RSQTs to quote most series. Root symbols are the basic symbols used to identify an option, such as, for example, “ABQ” for options on fictitious “ABC Corporation.” The various series of options on ABC Corporation are identified with two additional symbols reflecting the expiration month and the strike price, which also indicate whether it is a put or call option. ABC Corporation may have different root symbols other than ABQ because of the number of strike prices (there are not enough letters in the alphabet to capture all potential strike prices), the expiration months available, and whether any mergers or acquisitions have occurred. Thus, an option on the Exchange overlying a single underlying security could have several different root symbols. The Exchange anticipates that, if options can be assigned by root symbol, SQTs and RSQTs may more carefully tailor their requests to the specific roots in which they are interested. According to the Exchange, SQTs and RSQTs often submit quotes with bid/ask differentials as wide as the Exchange's rules permit in series that they have no interest in quoting. 8 The Exchange believes that, as a result, to meet their quoting continuity requirements, 9 SQTs and RSQTs submit continuous quotations that are not at or even near the best bid or offer on the Exchange, nor the National Best Bid or Offer, resulting in unnecessary quote traffic on the Exchange. 8 Streaming Quote Options trading on the Exchange's fully electronic trading platform for options, Phlx XL, may be quoted electronically with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid. The $5 bid/ask differentials only apply to Streaming Quote Options trading on Phlx XL and only following the opening rotation in each security. *See* Phlx Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(2). 9 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1). III. Discussion After careful review of the proposal and consideration of the comment letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an 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. 10 In approving this proposed rule change the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to, upon request, assign trading privileges in options to SQTs and RSQTs by “root symbol” would permit the Phlx's traders to select the series of options that they are most interested in quoting. This should not only reduce the number of series assigned to SQTs and RSQTs by the OAESC, but should also reduce the number of quotes submitted by SQTs and RSQTs, and therefore should help to mitigate the Exchange's quote message traffic and capacity. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-53), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-232 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55028; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-90] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Eliminate Certain License Fees December 29, 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 December 26, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 Phlx. The Phlx has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Phlx 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 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 Phlx proposes to modify its fee schedule to eliminate the license fees assessed on the following products: Russell 1000 Growth iShares (“IWF”); Russell 2000 iShares (“IWM”); Russell 2000 Value iShares (“IWN”); Russell 2000 Growth iShares (“IWO”); Russell Midcap Growth iShares (“IWP”); and Russell Midcap Value iShares (“IWS”). This proposal is scheduled to become effective for trades settling on or after January 2, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.Phlx.com,* at the principal office of the Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx 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 Currently, the Exchange imposes a license fee of $0.10 per contract side for equity option and index option “firm” transactions on certain licensed products after a cap of $60,000 per member organization is reached. 5 The Exchange also assesses a license fee of $0.10 per contract side after a 14,000 cap is reached on Registered Options Traders (“ROT”) comparison charges and ROT and specialist transaction charges in connection with non-AUTOM delivered equity option contracts on those products that carry a license fee. 6 Additionally, the Exchange imposes a license fee of $0.05 per contract side for dividend and short stock interest strategies in connection with certain products that carry license fees, if applicable. 7 The list of product symbols that are assessed a license fee are listed on the Exchange's $60,000 “Firm-Related” Equity Option and Index Option Cap Fee Schedule. 5 The $60,000 cap applies to all “firm-related” equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges combined. “Firm-related” charges include equity option firm/proprietary comparison charges, equity option firm/proprietary transaction charges, equity option firm/proprietary facilitation transaction charges, index option firm/proprietary comparison charges, index option firm/proprietary transaction charges, and index option firm/proprietary facilitation transaction charges (collectively “firm-related” charges). *See e.g.,* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53287 (February 14, 2006), 71 FR 9186 (February 22, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-10). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54659 (October 27, 2006), 71 FR 64603 (November 2, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-67). 7 *See e.g.,* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54424 (September 11, 2006), 71 FR 54699 (September 18, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-55). The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the $0.10 per contract side and $0.05 per contract side license fees described above on the following products: IWF; IWM; IWN; IWO, IWP; and IWS. 8 8 The Exchange recently eliminated additional license fees from its fee schedule. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54874 (December 5, 2006), 71 FR 75604 (December 15, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-78). The proposed rule change would remove references to the product symbols listed above from the Exchange's $60,000 “Firm Related” Equity Option and Index Option Cap because the Exchange no longer pays a license fee in connection with the trading of these products. Accordingly, there is no need to assess a license fee. Therefore, for trades settling on or after January 2, 2007, the Exchange will eliminate the $0.10 and $0.05 license fees for the above-referenced products. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 12 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2006-90 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-Phlx-2006-90. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-90 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-234 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55044; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-92] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Use of Benchmark and Qualified Contingent Trades in Nasdaq Securities Before the Trading Phase Date of Regulation NMS January 5, 2007. 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 December 28, 2006 the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Phlx. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which rendered the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 185A to add two paragraphs reflecting that Phlx will accept Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) Cross Orders marked as Benchmark and IOC Cross Orders marked as Qualified Contingent Trade, both for Nasdaq Global Market Securities and Nasdaq Capital Market Securities (“Nasdaq Securities”) before Rule 611 of Regulation NMS is operative on the Exchange (the “Trading Phase Date”). 5 In addition, the modified rule clarifies the requirements for IOC Cross Orders marked as Benchmark and IOC Cross Orders marked as Qualified Contingent Trade for Nasdaq Securities before the Trading Phase Date. In addition, the title of Phlx Rule 185A is amended to reflect the subject matter of the rule. Finally, the paragraphs of the rule are being individually identified. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and www.phlx.com. 5 The Trading Phase Date is currently February 5, 2007. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71 FR 30038 (May 24, 2006). 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 Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify the requirements for IOC Cross Orders marked Benchmark or Qualified Contingent Trade in Nasdaq Securities on XLE before the Trading Phase Date. Currently, Phlx Rule 185(c)(3) states “[a]n IOC Cross Order may be marked Benchmark if it meets the requirements of Reg NMS Rule 611(b)(7). An IOC Cross Order may be marked Qualified Contingent Trade if it meets the requirements of an exemption to Reg NMS Rule 611.” Also, Phlx Rule 185(c)(2)(D) states that IOC Cross Orders marked Benchmark or Qualified Contingent Trade are permitted to trade through the price of the Protected NBBO. 6 In addition, IOC Cross Orders marked Benchmark may be entered 7 and executed 8 in sub-penny increments. 9 However, the reference to “Reg NMS Rule 611” in Phlx Rule 185(c)(3) may be unclear in light of the fact that Rule 611 of Regulation NMS is effective, but not operative until the Trading Phase Date. Phlx also notes that the use of these orders in Nasdaq Securities does not require any relief from any National Market System Plans because there is no intermarket trade through prohibition in Nasdaq Securities before the Trading Phase Date. 6 *See* Phlx Rule 185(c)(2)(D). *See also* Phlx Rule 1(dd) (defining “Protected NBBO” as the best Protected Bid and the best Protected Offer in a stock). 7 *See* Phlx Rule 125(b)(2). 8 *See* Phlx Rule 125(d)(3). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54678 (October 31, 2006), 71 FR 65018 (November 6, 2006). Pursuant to this filing, a XLE Participant could submit an IOC Cross Order marked Benchmark in Nasdaq Securities if it is an order:
(1)At a price that was not based, directly or indirectly, on the quoted price of the NMS Stock at the time of the execution; and
(2)for which the material terms were not reasonably determinable at the time the commitment to execute the order was made. This definition is identical to the exemption to the trade through rule in Rule 611(b)(7) of Regulation NMS, which is not effective until the Trading Phase Date. Phlx believes that this will allow XLE Participants to gain valuable experience with this order type in Nasdaq Securities prior to the Trading Phase Date. In addition, a XLE Participant could submit an IOC Cross Order marked Qualified Contingent Trade in Nasdaq Securities if it meets the seven requirements listed in new Phlx Rule 185A(d). 10 These requirements are meant to encompass a trade in Nasdaq Securities that “is a multi-component trade involving orders for a security and a related derivative, or, in the alternative, orders for related securities, that are executed at or near the same time.” 11 The Exchange notes that the economics of a Qualified Contingent Trade are based on the relationship between the prices of the security and the related derivative or security, and that the execution of one order is contingent upon the execution of the other order. The Exchange also notes that the sought-after spread or ratio between the relevant instruments is known and specified at the time of the order, and this spread or ratio stands regardless of the prevailing price at the time of execution. Therefore, the parties to these transactions are focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the component instruments, rather than on the absolute price of any single component instrument. Because the focus of such trades is on the relative prices of the component instruments, the price of a component of a particular trade may or may not correspond to the prevailing market price of the security. For Qualified Contingent Trades in Nasdaq Securities, the parties to the trade will not execute one side of the trade without the other component or components being executed in full (or in ratio) and at the specified spread or ratio. 12 10 These seven requirements are taken from the exemption to Rule 611 issued by the Commission for Qualified Contingent Trades. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006). 11 *Id.* 12 *See id.* Finally, Phlx Rule 185A is being divided into individually identified subparagraphs to make the Rule clearer. In addition, the name of the rule is being modified to reflect that the rule would refer to more than only intermarket sweep orders. 2. Statutory Basis The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest by allowing XLE Participants to gain experience with Benchmark and Qualified Contingent Trade order types for Nasdaq Securities prior to the Trading Phase Date. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received by the Exchange. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule
(i)does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 16 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, 17 Phlx provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6) 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 18 normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act 19 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change clarifies the requirements of an IOC Cross Order marked Benchmark in Nasdaq Securities and an IOC Cross Order marked Qualified Contingent Trade in Nasdaq Securities for the period before the Trading Phase Date. The Commission believes that the earlier operative date is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because there is no intermarket trade-through prohibition applicable to Nasdaq Securities before the Trading Phase Date. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 20 18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 19 19 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 20 20 For the purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 21 21 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2006-92 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-Phlx-2006-92. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-92 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-235 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5663] Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee SUMMARY: This notice announces meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee
(ITAC)to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standardization Sector Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles including related telecommunication economic and policy issues), the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunications Commission's Permanent Consultative Committee I (Telecommunications), and a standing electronic mail meeting preparing advice for ITU Radiocommunication Sector meetings. The ITAC will meet on February 8 and 22 and March 8, 2007, all meetings from 2 p.m.-4 p.m. to prepare advice on U.S. positions to be taken at ITU-T Study Group 3. Location of these meetings may be obtained by calling the Secretariat below. The ITAC will meet on February 13, 2007 from 10 a.m. to noon, and February 20 and March 13, 2007 both from 2 p.m.-4 p.m. to prepare advice on U.S. positions to be taken at the OAS CITEL PCC.I. Location of these meetings may be obtained by calling the Secretariat below. The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee
(ITAC)will meet to prepare for various ITU-R Study Group meetings continuously by e-mail through the end of July 2007. People desiring to participate in this activity should contact the Secretariat at *minardje@state.gov* or 202 647-3234 for directions. These meetings are open to the public. Further information may be obtained from the Secretariat *minardje@state.gov,* telephone 202 647-3234. Dated: January 4, 2007. Anne D. Jillson, Foreign Affairs Officer, International Communications & Information Policy, Multilateral Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-257 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5662] Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy will meet on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, Room 7516 HST, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee is composed of prominent Americans from the private sector and academia who provide the Department with advice on its worldwide management operations, including structuring, leading, and managing large global enterprises, communicating governmental missions and policies to relevant publics, and better use of information technology. The meeting will focus on Private Sector Partnerships, Workforce and Training, State Department 2012/2025, IT Transformation, and Transformational Diplomacy. This meeting is open to the public from 8 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. as seating capacity allows. The Committee will meet in closed session from 10:30 a.m. until 12 p.m. to receive special briefings including classified information. It has been determined that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and 552b(c)(9) (B). Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public (including government employees and Department of State employees) planning to attend should provide by no later than January 16, 2007, their name; place of birth and date of birth; citizenship (country); ID number, i.e., U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), passport (country), or drivers license number (state); professional affiliation, address, and telephone number to Carlene Roy by fax
(202)647-2524, e-mail ( *royc@state.gov* ), or telephone
(202)647-0093. Members of the public also may file a written statement with the committee. One of the following valid photo IDs will be required for admittance to the State Department building: U.S. driver's license, passport, or U.S. Government agency ID. Members of the public must use the “C” Street entrance, after going through the exterior screening facilities. Due to escorting requirements, attendees should arrive 15 minutes before the meeting begins. For additional information, contact Madelyn Marchessault, Office of Management Policy, at
(202)647-0093 or at *Marchessaultms@state.gov* . Dated: January 4, 2007. Marguerite Coffey, Managing Director, Office of Management Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-256 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-35-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement; Ada County, ID AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Letter of project initiation; Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and initiation of public and agency scoping for the extension of State Highway 16 (SH 16) between State Highway 44 (SH 44) and Interstate 84 (I-84) in Ada County, Idaho. SUMMARY: The FHWA hereby gives notice that it intends to prepare an EIS for the proposed new construction of approximately 7 miles of SH 16 between SH 44 (State Street) and I-84 in the general vicinity of McDermott Road in Ada County, Idaho. The corridor study will evaluate the location and design for future construction of this highway segment. This EIS is being prepared and considered in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and FHWA regulations, guidance and policy. Anticipated Federal approvals/actions needed for this project to be constructed include permits for Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), issuance of a Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through consultation as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. *Cooperating Agencies:* There are no cooperating agencies yet identified for this project. DATES: Comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed project should be received no later than January 31, 2007. Comments and questions should be directed to the address listed below. Public comments are welcome anytime during the NEPA process and should be directed to the address listed below. Additional formal opportunities for public participation after the Public Scoping are tentatively scheduled as follows: *Review and comment of Draft EIS (including a public hearing):* Fall of 2009. *Review of Final EIS:* Fall 2010. Notices of availability for the Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision will be provided through direct mail, the Federal Register and other media. Notification also will be sent to Federal, State, local agencies, persons, and organizations that submit comments or questions. Precise schedules and locations for public meetings will be announced in the local news media. Interested individuals and organizations may request to be included on the mailing list for the distribution of meeting announcements and associated information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Johnson, Field Operations Engineer; Federal Highway Administration, 3050 Lake Harbor Lane, Suite 126, Boise, Idaho, 83703, Telephone:
(208)334-9180; or Gwen Smith, GARVEE Public Involvement Coordinator, Idaho Transportation Department, P.O. Box 7129, Boise, Idaho 83707-1129, Telephone:
(208)334-4444; or Steve Alters, CIP, 720 Park Blvd, Boise, Idaho, 83729, Telephone:
(208)386-5004. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at
(202)512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the **Federal Register's** home page at: *http://www/nara.gov/fedreg* and the Government Printing Office's database at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov.nara* . Background The FHWA in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD), and Connecting Idaho Partners
(CIP)will prepare an EIS to identify an alignment for the extension of State Highway 16 (SH 16) from SH 44 (State Street) to Interstate 84 (I-84) in Ada County, Idaho. This extension includes a new bridge across the Boise River. Notice is hereby given that the public scoping process has been initiated to prepare an EIS that will address the impacts of and alternatives to the proposal. The purpose of the scoping process is to solicit public comment regarding the full spectrum of issues and concerns, including a suitable range of alternatives, and the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that should be addressed in the EIS process. The EIS will examine the short and long-term impacts of a reasonable range of alternatives, including the no action alternative, on the natural, physical, and human environments. The impacts assessment will include, but not be limited to, impacts on wetlands, wildlife, and fisheries; social environment; changes in land use; aesthetics; changes in traffic; and economic impacts. Environmental Justice (as outlined in Executive Order 12898) will also be addressed as part of the impact assessment. The EIS will also examine measures to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action. Comments are being solicited from Federal, State, and local agencies and from private organizations and citizens who have interest in this proposal. Public information meetings will be held in the project area to discuss the potential alignments. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review, and a public hearing will be held to receive comments. Public notice will be given of the time and place of all meetings and hearings. Comments and/or suggestions from all interested parties are requested, to ensure that the purpose and need for the project, the full range of all issues, and significant environmental issues in particular, are identified and reviewed. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and/or its EIS should be directed to the FHWA, ITD or CIP at the addresses listed previously. It is anticipated that a draft EIS will be available in the Fall of 2009. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this proposed Action.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123; 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: January 7, 2007. Stephen Moreno, Idaho Division Administrator, FHWA. [FR Doc. 07-64 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
U.S. Code
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Hearings and judicial review§ 2239
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Trading by members of exchanges, brokers, and dealers§ 78k
- Registered securities associations§ 78o–3
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Rules, regulations, and recommendations§ 315
CFR
- Participation by a person not a party.§ 2.315
- Written communications.§ 52.3
- Finality of early site permit determinations.§ 52.39
- Extent of activities permitted.§ 52.25
- Administrative review of applications; hearings.§ 52.21
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- NMS security designation and definitions.§ 242.600
- Draft environmental impact statements.§ 771.123
9 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 106-567
- 114 Stat. 2856
- 10 CFR 100
- 10 CFR 51
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 17 CFR 240.11
- 489 U.S. 468
- 17 CFR 240.9
- 49 CFR 1.48
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Pub. L.Pub. L. 106-567
Stat.114 Stat. 2856
Cites 29 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources