Rules and Regulations. Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment
25,298 words·~115 min read·
/register/2007/01/16/07-117A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* State Agreements Program, as authorized by Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0029. 3. *How often the collection is required:* One time or as needed. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Thirty-four Agreement States who have signed Section 274(b) Agreements with NRC. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 34. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 1,066. 7. *Abstract:* Agreement States are asked on a one-time or as-needed basis to respond to a specific incident, to gather information on licensing and inspection practices and other technical statistical information.
The results of such information requests, which are authorized under Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, are utilized in part by NRC in preparing responses to Congressional inquiries. Agreement State comments are also solicited in the areas of proposed procedure and policy development. Submit, by March 19, 2007, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2.
Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to: *Infocollects@Nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day January, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-403 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures;
Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on January 31, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and
(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: January 9, 2007. Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-404 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.
(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 22, 2006 to January 4, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 147). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* ; or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. *Date of amendment request:* December 14, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments revise the technical specifications to add the FERRET Code as an approved methodology for determining reactor coolant system pressure and temperature limits. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change revises Technical Specification
(TS)5.6.5, “Reactor Coolant System
(RCS)Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR)”, to add the FERRET Code as an approved methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters, engineered safety feature actuation setpoints, accident mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis assumptions or inputs. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated will not be significantly increased as a result of the proposed change. 2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change incorporates the FERRET Code as an approved methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits. The change does not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as designed. The change does not result in any event previously deemed incredible being made credible. The change does not result in adverse conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety systems. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change incorporates the FERRET Code as an approved methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits. The proposed change does not alter safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed change. There are no new or significant changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences. The proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of fission products to the public, nor will it degrade the performance of any other structures, systems or components
(SSCs)important to safety. Therefore, the requested change will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* L. Raghavan. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri. *Date of amendment request:* August 17, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment would revise Technical Specifications
(TSs)2.1.1, “Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],” 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System
(RTS)Instrumentation,” 3.4.1, RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling
(DNB)Limits,” and 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).” The changes would
(1)relocate certain operating cycle-specific parameters limits, including TS Figure 2.1.1-1, “Reactor Core Safety Limits,” from the above TSs to the plant COLR,
(2)add two new safety limits for departure from nucleate boiling ratio
(DNBR)and peak fuel centerline temperature, and
(3)add several topical reports to TS 5.6.5 and have the reports in TS 5.6.5 cited by only the report title and number. The TSs would state that the limits to be met or the values of denoted parameters are specified in the COLR. The existing TS 5.6.5 has seven core operating limits that are listed in the specification, and this would be expanded to include the three additional limits from TSs 2.1.1, 3.3.1, and 3.4.1. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Standard Technical Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, “Relocate TS Parameters to COLR,” and TSTF-363, Revision 0, “Relocate Topical Report References in ITS [Improved Technical Specification] 5.6.5, COLR.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Overall protection system performance will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are no design [or equipment] changes. The design of the reactor trip system
(RTS)instrumentation and engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS) instrumentation will be unaffected and these protection systems will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will be maintained. The proposed changes will not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)from performing their intended [safety] functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes are programmatic and administrative in nature. These changes do not physically alter safety-related systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions. Additional Safety Limits on the DNB [departure from nucleate boiling] design basis and peak fuel centerline temperature are being imposed in TS 2.1.1, “Reactor Core Safety Limits,” and the Reactor Core Safety Limits figure is being relocated to the COLR. The additional Safety Limits are consistent with the values stated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report for the Callaway Plant]. The proposed changes do not, by themselves, alter any of the relocated limits. The removal of the cycle-specific parameter limits from the TS[s] does not eliminate existing requirements to comply with the parameter limits. [The value of the limits is relocated to the COLR, but the requirement to follow that limit remains in the TSs by the reference to the limits or values in the COLR, and the values of the limits are not being changed by this amendment.] TS 5.6.5.b continues to ensure that the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits meet NRC reviewed and approved methodologies [by the requirement stated in TS 5.6.5.b that “the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits shall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC”]. TS 5.6.5.c, [which is] unchanged by this application, will continue to ensure that applicable limits of the safety analyses are met [by continuing to state this as a requirement in the TSs]. The proposed changes to reference only the Topical Report number and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine core operating limits that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. [This remains a requirement stated in TS 5.6.5.b.] This [proposed] method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current [NRC-approved] Topical Reports to support [the] limits in the COLR without [the licensee] having to submit an amendment to the operating license. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports for Callaway Plant applications would still be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and, where required, receive prior NRC review and approval. [The criteria in the regulation governing changes to the plant without NRC approval, 10 CFR 50.59, would have to be met before the licensee could use a later version of an NRC-approved Topical Report that is listed in TS 5.6.5.b.] The cycle-specific parameter limits being transferred from the TS[s] to the COLR will continue to be controlled under existing programs and procedures. The FSAR accident analyses will continue to be examined with respect to future changes in the cycle-specific parameters using NRC reviewed and approved reload design methodologies [(i.e., NRC reviewed and approved Topical Reports)], ensuring that the evaluation of new reload designs under 10 CFR 50.59 is bounded by previously accepted analyses. All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR. The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met. [The proposed changes do not alter any requirements in the TSs, but they do add two new safety limits to TS 2.2.1. The changes also relocate certain limits or parameter values from the TSs to the COLR; however, these limits and values are still required to be met and be determined from NRC-approved methodologies that apply to the Callaway Plant. Therefore, there are no changes to accident analyses previously evaluated and described in the FSAR.] Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its safety function. Th[ese] change[s] will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this amendment. [No equipment is being added to the plant by the amendment.] The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation System, or Solid State Protection System used in the plant protection systems. Relocation of cycle-specific parameter limits has no influence on, nor does it contribute in any way to, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The relocated cycle-specific parameter limits will continue to be calculated using the NRC reviewed and approved methodologies. The proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. Operation within the core operating limits will continue to be observed. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impacts on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio
(DNBR)limits, heat flux hot channel factor (F <sup>Q</sup> ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (FΔH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power density, or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met. The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillances or alter the frequency of surveillances [(i.e., the surveillance test intervals)] required by the Technical Specifications. The nominal RTS and ESFAS trip setpoints will remain unchanged. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. The development of cycle-specific parameter limits for future reload designs will continue to conform to NRC reviewed and approved methodologies, and will be performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to assure that plant operation [is] within [these] cycle-specific parameter limits. The proposed changes will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis accident. [The proposed changes do not alter any requirements in the TSs. They relocate certain limits or parameter values from the TSs to the COLR; however, these limits and values are still required to be met and be determined from NRC-approved methodologies that apply to the Callaway Plant.] Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* David Terao. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the applications for amendment,
(2)the amendment, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. *Date of application for amendment:* September 25, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises Technical Specification
(TS)4.2.a, “ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Components and Supports.” The revised TS 4.2.a.2, references the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. *Date of issuance:* December 14, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 189 *Facility Operating License No. DPR-43:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR 62308). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. DukePower Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. *Date of application for amendments:* December 20, 2005, as supplemented May 4 and August 31, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the McGuire 1 and 2 licensing basis to adopt a selective implementation of the alternative source term radiological analysis methodology. The amendments also revised Technical Specification 3.9.4, “Containment Penetrations.” *Date of issuance:* December 22, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 236, 218 *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 24, 2006 (71 FR 50105) The supplements dated May 4 and August 31, 2006, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois. *Date of application for amendments:* December 9, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated August 16, August 24, September 13, and October 12, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments adopt Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification
(STS)Change Traveler 360 (TSTF-360), Revision 1, “DC Electric Rewrite.” The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)Section 3.8.4, “DC Sources-Operating,” TS 3.8.5, “DC Sources-Shutdown,” TS 3.8.6, “Battery Cell Parameters,” and adds a new TS Section 5.5.14, “Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program.” *Date of issuance:* December 19, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 179/165. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19115) The August 16, August 24, September 13, and October 12, 2006 supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia. *Date of application for amendment:* May 30, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendments would relocate the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)standard being used to test the total particulate concentration of the stored fuel oil to the Technical Specification
(TS)Bases. This proposed change is described in TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-374, Rev. 0, “Revision to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel Oil.” In addition, the licensee has proposed to use a “water and sediment test” instead of the “clear and bright” test provided in TSTF-374. *Date of issuance:* December 11, 2006. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 249, 229. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7:* Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46941) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2006. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John W. Lubinski, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-321 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55045; File No. SR-Amex-2007-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options Fee Changes 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 January 4, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Amex. The Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to 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 Amex proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com,* 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 Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. 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 is proposing to amend its Options Fee schedule to eliminate the licensing fee of $0.10 a contract which is currently charged on options on the iShares Russell 1000 Index Fund (symbol: IWB), the iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund (symbol: IWF), the iShares Russell 1000 Value Index Fund (symbol: IWD), the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (symbol: IWM), the iShares Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund (symbol: IWO), the iShares Russell 2000 Value Index Fund (symbol: IWN), and the iShares Russell 3000 Index Fund (symbol: IWV) (collectively, the “ETF Options”). The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the licensing fee applicable to the ETF Options as of January 3, 2007 due to the termination of existing licensing agreements on December 31, 2006. The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 5 5 Section 6(b)(4) requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among exchange members and other persons using exchange facilities. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 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 proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 8 because it establishes or changes a member due, fee, or other charge. 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. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 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-Amex-2007-02 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-2007-02. 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 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-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-381 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55048; File No. SR-Amex-2006-119] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Definition of Complex Trade as Applied to Trades Through the Options Intermarket Linkage 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 American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 substantially 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 Amex proposes to revise Amex Rule 940(b)(3) to amend the definition of “Complex Trade.” The text of the proposed rule change appears below, with additions italicized and deletions in [brackets]: Options Intermarket Linkage Rule 940
(a)No Change
(b)Definitions—The following terms shall have the meaning specified in this Rule solely for the purpose of this Section 4: (1)-(2) No Change
(3)“Complex Trade” means the execution of an order in an option series in conjunction with the execution of one or more related order(s) in different options series in the same underlying security occurring at or near the same time *for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy and for an equivalent number of contracts, provided that the number of contracts of the legs of a spread, straddle or combination order may differ by a permissible ratio* [for the equivalent number of contracts and for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy]. *The permissible ratio for this purpose is any ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).*
(4)through
(20)No Change II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has substantially 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 Amex proposes to revise Amex Rule 940(b)(3) to amend the definition of “Complex Trade.” For the purpose of the Options Intermarket Linkage (the “Linkage”), the Amex defines a “Complex Trade” as a trade reflecting the execution of an order in an options series in conjunction with one or more other orders in different series in the same underlying security “for the equivalent number of contracts.” A Complex Trade is exempt from the trade-through rule provided by Amex Rule 942(b)(7). In contrast to the Linkage definition of Complex Trade, the definition of “ratio order” set forth in Amex Rule 950—ANTE(e)(vii) does not require that there be an equivalent number of contracts in the orders. Specifically, Rule 950-ANTE(e)(vii) permits ratios that are equal to or greater than one-to-three and less than or equal to three-to-one. The Exchange applies modified priority rules to ratio orders as well as other complex orders, including spread orders, straddle orders, and combination orders. 3 3 *See* Amex Rule 950-ANTE(d), Commentary .01. This proposal will conform the Linkage definition of Complex Trade in Amex Rule 940(b)(3) to the Amex's definition of a ratio order. According to the Amex, the other options exchanges also will adopt a similar definition, thereby resulting in a uniform application of the definition of Complex Trade across exchanges. The Amex believes that this uniformity will facilitate efficient executions of Complex Trades on all markets. In addition, the Exchange submits that the proposal will align the Linkage rules with the Amex's internal market rules to facilitate the trading of complex orders. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Amex believes that the proposed rule change will impose no 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 Amex neither solicited nor received written comments with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. by order approve such proposed rule change; or B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ; or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Amex-2006-119 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-119. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-119 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-384 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55050; File No. SR-BSE-2006-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Treatment of Limit Orders That Are Submitted to the Boston Options Exchange During a Price Improvement Period 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 8, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change. On January 4, 2007, the BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change is described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 5 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 As described in more detail herein, the Exchange proposes to modify the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) Rules to clarify the treatment of Limit Orders that are submitted to the BOX during a Price Improvement Period (“PIP”). 3 In addition, this proposal clarifies that certain Improvement Orders (as explained below) are not accepted by the BOX Trading Host. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.bostonstock.com/legal/pending_rule_filings.html* . 3 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings prescribed under the BOX Rules. 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 self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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 treatment of Limit Orders that are submitted to the BOX during a PIP. In addition, this proposal clarifies that certain Improvement Orders (as explained below) are not accepted by the BOX Trading Host. I. Background and Introduction In general, the BOX PIP is a three-second auction starting at a price better than the current National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”), during which BOX Participants compete to participate in the execution of the Customer Order submitted to the PIP (the “PIP Order”) by submitting specially designated orders called Improvement Orders in one penny increments that are only accepted in a PIP auction. A Limit Order, in the same series as the PIP Order, that is submitted to BOX during a PIP auction is considered an “unrelated order” pursuant to the BOX PIP Rules, 4 and under certain circumstances, may prematurely terminate the PIP or may immediately execute against the PIP Order. When the PIP is prematurely terminated, the PIP Order is matched against the best prevailing orders on BOX (whether Improvement Orders or unrelated orders received by BOX during the PIP). 5 Then the Limit Order is filtered from trading through the NBBO and executed accordingly. 6 4 *See* paragraph
(a)of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. 5 Pursuant to Paragraph (e)(iii) of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. 6 Pursuant to Paragraph
(b)of Section 16 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules (“Filter Rule”). Pursuant to the Filter Rule, a Limit Order that has a Buy
(Sell)limit price equal to or better than the National Best Offer (Bid), and the Best BOX Offer
(Bid)is not equal to the National Best Offer (Bid), the Limit Order is “exposed” for three seconds to seek potential BOX orders that can match the National Best Offer
(Bid)before the order is routed to an away market that is equal to the National Best Offer (Bid). Competing Principles Underlying the Treatment of Unrelated Orders in a PIP The BOX trading system operates under four main principles when handling the interaction of an unrelated Limit Order with the PIP process. Specifically, the BOX system: 1. Allows the PIP to continue for as long as possible. The BSE believes that in most cases this will maximize the price improvement potential to the PIP Order. 2. Maintains the relative price/time priority of all orders on the system, including Improvement Orders. 3. Will not allow Improvement Orders to lock or cross the BOX Book. 4. Never “holds-up” the processing of any order and seeks to execute an order as quickly as practicable in order to mitigate the risk of adverse market movements. On the few occasions when these four principles intersect or are in conflict, BSE has sought to maintain a reasonable balance between the interests of all orders while offering each order the best available price, without violating any BOX Rules or the securities laws. Therefore, the first principle, allowing the PIP to continue for as long as possible, will apply until it conflicts with any of the other three
(3)principles. Consideration of the size of orders or the potential execution volume at any PIP price level is not one of these main principles of the BOX system. The BOX system does not consider the number of contracts that may be executed at the best PIP improvement price when determining priority or when the PIP should terminate. Having at least one contract available at the best improvement price is all that is required. II. Same Side Limit Orders—Premature Termination Events The submission to BOX of a Limit Order that is on the same side of the market as the PIP Order will prematurely terminate the PIP, allowing the PIP Order to be immediately executed against the best prevailing orders on BOX (whether Improvement Orders or unrelated orders received by BOX during the PIP), if at the time the Limit Order is submitted to BOX: i. The Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is equal to or higher (lower) than the National Best Offer
(Bid)and either:
(a)The BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is equal to the National Best Offer (Bid); or
(b)The BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is higher (lower) than the National Best Offer
(Bid)and the price of the best Improvement Order is equal to or lower (higher) than the National Best Offer (Bid); or ii. The Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is lower (higher) than the National Best Offer
(Bid)and its limit price equals or crosses the price of the best Improvement Order. 7 7 *See* proposed paragraph
(i)of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. In short, a same side Limit Order will terminate the PIP if the Limit Order matches the best BOX price ( *i.e.* , the BOX BBO or the best Improvement Order) provided the best BOX price is better than or equal to the NBBO ( *i.e.* , the Limit Order is marketable) 8 or if the Limit Order is non-marketable and its limit price is superior to the best Improvement Order. Therefore, the first factor to consider when determining whether the PIP will prematurely terminate is whether the Limit Order is marketable upon receipt by BOX. 8 A Limit Order is marketable when the Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is equal to or higher (lower) than the National Best Offer (Bid). A. If the Limit Order Is Marketable The rule contemplates two different marketable Limit Order scenarios. 1. Scenario One At the time of the submission of the Limit Order, the Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is equal to or higher (lower) than the National Best Offer
(Bid)and the BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is equal to the National Best Offer (Bid). 9 The following example illustrates this scenario. 9 *See* proposed paragraph (i)(i)(a) of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. Example A— Table A NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Early termination PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Buy at 2.10 20 YES 2.07 As shown in Table A, assume the NBBO and the BOX BBO in the relevant series are $2.00 bid—$2.10 offer and the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts. The PIP starts at $2.09 (one penny better than the National Best Offer). During the PIP auction, Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.07 for 20 contracts. Then a Limit Order to buy 20 contracts at a limit price of $2.10 is submitted to BOX. In this example, since the Buy Limit Order price of $2.10 is equal to the National Best Offer also at $2.10 and the BOX Best Offer of $2.10 is equal to the National Best Offer at $2.10, then the PIP will immediately terminate. Upon termination, the PIP Order will execute in full against the best Improvement Order at $2.07 and any remaining Improvement Orders will be immediately cancelled. The Buy Limit Order will then execute against the BOX Offer at $2.10. The result would be the same regardless of the Limit Order size or if the best Improvement Order was anywhere between $2.09 through $2.01. 10 10 The Trading Host will not accept Improvement Orders equal to or lower than $2.00 because the BOX system will not allow Improvement Orders to lock or cross the Best Bid or Offer on the BOX Book. *See* proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and discussion below. BSE wants to maximize the price to the PIP Order while also minimizing any potential market risk to the Limit Order by having BOX execute the Limit Order as soon as a matching order is available at the National Best Offer (Bid). In order to avoid a delay of the Limit Order execution against the matching BOX Offer, which Offer might otherwise be cancelled, BSE has chosen to strike a balance among the competing principles and give the PIP Order the price improvement that is immediately available to the PIP Order by prematurely terminating the PIP auction. In this Example A, if a PIP is not underway the Limit Order could execute against the BOX Offer at $2.10. However, in this situation in which a PIP is underway, allowing the PIP to continue and immediately executing the Limit Order at $2.10 against the BOX Offer would violate BOX price priority rules. This is because the best Improvement Order at $2.07 is at a lower ( *i.e.* , better) price than the limit price of $2.10. On BOX, even though Improvement Orders may only execute against PIP Orders, price priority rules still apply, and no order can be executed at a price inferior to the best price available to another order. 2. Scenario Two At the time of the submission of the Limit Order, the Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is equal to or higher (lower) than the National Best Offer (Bid), the BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is higher (lower) than the National Best Offer (Bid), and the price of the best Improvement Order is equal to or lower (higher) than the National Best Offer (Bid). 11 The following is an example of this market scenario. 11 *See* proposed paragraph (i)(i)(b) of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. Example B— Table B NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Early termination PIP order execution 2.00-2.05 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.05 Buy at 2.05 20 YES 2.05 If we take Example A above and make the following changes in the market scenario: the NBBO improves to $2.00 bid—$2.05 offer after the PIP begins, the best Improvement Order is for 20 contracts at $2.05, and a Limit Order with a limit price to buy at $2.05 is submitted to BOX, the PIP would also terminate prematurely. In this Example B, since the Buy Limit Order price of $2.05 is still equal to the National Best Offer also at $2.05 ( *i.e.* , marketable), the BOX Best Offer ($2.10) is higher than the National Best Offer ($2.05) and the price of the best Improvement Order ($2.05) is equal to the National Best Offer at $2.05, the market conditions meet the requirements of the rule and the PIP will immediately terminate. The PIP Order will execute in full against the best Improvement Order at $2.05 and any remaining Improvement Orders will be immediately cancelled. Because the Limit Order matches the National Best Offer at $2.05 the Limit Order would be exposed internally on BOX at $2.05 pursuant to the Filter Rule. 12 12 Section 16(b) of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. As in Scenario One, BSE wants to maximize the price to the PIP Order while also limiting the market risk to the Limit Order, by having BOX give the Limit Order the opportunity to execute as soon as practicable at the National Best Offer (Bid). In this case, because the BOX Offer at $2.10 is inferior to the National Best Offer at $2.05, the Limit Order would ordinarily ( *i.e.* , absent a PIP auction underway) be exposed at $2.05 pursuant to the Filter Rule. However, if the BOX trading system were to continue the PIP, no further price improvement would be possible when the best Improvement Order is $2.05. The Trading Host could not accept Improvement Orders equal to or lower than the $2.05 Limit Order price as long as the Limit Order is being exposed because the Limit Order would have priority and the BOX system will not allow Improvement Orders to lock or cross the opposite side BOX Best Bid of $2.05. 13 13 *See* proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and discussion below. Alternatively, if BOX were to hold the unrelated Limit Order until the end of the PIP auction this could cause the Limit Order to lose an opportunity to trade. Rather, BSE has chosen to strike a balance among the competing principles by giving the PIP Order the then-available price improvement and prematurely terminating the PIP. If the best Improvement Order was only at $2.07 in Example B, the best Improvement Order price would be higher than the National Best Offer price of $2.05, and the PIP would continue because it does not create a situation that violates BOX price/time priority rules. The Limit Order would be exposed internally on BOX at $2.05. Although the PIP continues, the Trading Host would not accept Improvement Orders equal to or lower than the $2.05 Limit Order price because it will not allow Improvement Orders to lock or cross the opposite side order exposed on the BOX Book. 14 14 *See* proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and discussion below. B. If the Limit Order Is Non-Marketable The PIP auction will also prematurely terminate early when at the time of the submission, the Buy
(Sell)Limit Order price is lower (higher) than the National Best Offer
(Bid)( *i.e.* , non-marketable) and the price of the Limit Order equals or crosses the price of the best Improvement Order. 15 The following is an example of this market scenario. 15 *See* proposed paragraph (i)(ii) of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. Example C— Table C NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Early termination PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.05 Buy/Sell at 2.05 20 YES 2.05 As shown in Table C, assume the NBBO and the BOX BBO are $2.00 bid—$2.10 offer and the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts. The PIP starts at $2.09 (one penny better than the National Best Offer). During the PIP auction, Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.05 for 20 contracts. Then a Limit Order to buy 20 contracts at a limit price of $2.05 is submitted to BOX. In this Example C, since the Buy Limit Order price of $2.05 is lower than the National Best Offer at $2.10 and the limit price equals or crosses the price of the best Improvement Order ( *i.e.* , $2.05), then the PIP will immediately terminate. The PIP Order will execute in full against the best Improvement Order at $2.05 and any remaining Improvement Orders will be immediately cancelled. The Buy Limit Order will then be placed on the BOX Book at $2.05. As in the other scenarios, BSE wants to maximize the price to the PIP Order and also limit the market risk to the Limit Order, by having BOX display the Limit Order and giving the Limit Order the opportunity to execute as soon as practicable. In this case, because the Buy Limit Order at $2.05 is better than the current BOX Best Bid at $2.00, the Limit Order must be displayed at $2.05 pursuant to the Display Rule. 16 However, if the BOX trading system were to continue the PIP, it could create a situation very similar to the one explained in Scenario 2 and Example B above. Specifically, no further price improvement would be possible when the best Improvement Order is $2.05. The Trading Host could not accept Improvement Orders equal to or lower than the $2.05 Limit Order price as long as the Limit Order is being displayed because the Limit Order would have priority and the BOX system will not allow Improvement Orders to lock or cross the opposite side BOX Best Bid of $2.05. 17 16 Section 16(a) of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. 17 *See* proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and discussion below. For clarification purposes only, the following is a similar scenario in which the PIP would *not* prematurely terminate. Example D— Table D NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Early termination PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Buy at 2.05 20 NO 2.07 or 2.06 Assume we take Example C above and make the following changes in the market scenario: Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.07 for 20 contracts. Upon receipt of the Buy Limit Order, there wouldn't be an order on BOX that the Limit Order could execute against and the Limit Order would then be placed on the BOX Book at $2.05 and displayed as the BOX Best Bid. Because the Improvement Order at $2.07 is higher than the $2.05 Limit Order price, the PIP will continue. BOX will not accept Improvement Orders lower than $2.06 18 because this would lock or cross the BOX Best Bid (the Limit Order at $2.05). 18 The BOX Trading Host is programmed to continue to accept Improvement Orders at $2.06 or higher and will not accept Improvement Orders at $2.05 or lower unless the Limit Order is cancelled, in which case the Trading Host will begin to accept them again. III. Opposite Side Limit Order-Immediate Execution The submission to BOX of a Limit Order on the opposite side of a PIP Order will immediately execute against a PIP Order when the Sell
(Buy)Limit Order price is equal to or crosses the National Best Bid (Offer) and; i. The BOX Best Bid (Offer) is equal to the National Best Bid (Offer); or ii. The BOX Best Bid (Offer) is lower (higher) than the National Best Bid (Offer) and neither the best Improvement Order nor BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is equal to or crosses the National Best Bid (Offer). In short, the opposite side Limit Order will immediately execute against a PIP Order when the Limit Order could match the BOX Best Bid (Offer) and/or the National Best Bid (Offer) and the Limit Order is superior to the best Improvement Order. Whether the opposite side Limit Order is marketable 19 or not upon receipt by BOX is the first factor to consider when determining whether the Limit Order will immediately execute against the PIP Order. If the Limit Order is marketable and the best Improvement Order is not equal to or lower (higher) than the National Best Bid (Offer), then the Limit Order immediately executes against the PIP Order up to the lesser of
(a)the size of the PIP Order, or
(b)the size of the Limit Order. 20 The execution price of the PIP Order against the Limit Order in this case will be determined by whether the BOX Best Bid (Offer) is equal to the National Best Bid (Offer) or it is lower (higher) than the National Best Bid (Offer) at the time of execution. Where the Limit Order is for at least the full size of the PIP Order, the PIP is prematurely terminated with the cancellation of all the Improvement Orders. 19 For an opposite side Limit Order, it is marketable when the Sell
(Buy)Limit Order price is equal to or lower than the National Best Bid (Offer). 20 The remainder of the Limit Order, if any, is filtered from trading through the NBBO pursuant to the Filter Rule and executed accordingly. The remainder of the PIP Order, if any, continues in the PIP process. A. If the BOX BBO Equals the NBBO If the BOX Best Bid (Offer) is equal to the National Best Bid (Offer) at the time of the execution, then the execution price will be one penny better than the National Best Bid (Offer). Example E— Table E NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against PIP order PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Sell at 2.00 20 YES 2.01 As shown in Table E, assume the NBBO and the BOX BBO in the relevant series is $2.00 bid—$2.10 offer and the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts. The PIP starts at $2.09 (one penny better than the National Best Offer). During the PIP interval, Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.07. Then, assume a Limit Order to sell 20 contracts with a limit price of $2.00 is submitted to BOX. Because the Sell Limit Order price is equal to the National Best Bid at $2.00 ( *i.e.* , marketable) and the BOX Best Bid of $2.00 is equal to the National Best Bid, the Limit Order will be immediately executed in full against the PIP Order at $2.01, one penny better than the National Best Bid. Since the Limit Order is the same size as the PIP Order, the PIP terminates as well in this example. Any Improvement Orders will be immediately cancelled. BSE wants to maximize the price to the PIP Order and also limit the market risk to the Limit Order, by having BOX give the Limit Order the opportunity to execute as soon as a matching order is available. In this case the PIP Order is immediately available to execute against the Limit Order at $2.01, which provides price improvement to both the PIP Order and the Limit Order. “Holding” the Limit Order until the PIP has run its full course might cause the Limit Order to miss the $2.00 BOX Best Bid which could be cancelled or modified during the lapse. Also, the PIP Order could have missed the opportunity to receive an execution at $2.01. In contrast, allowing the PIP to continue without immediately executing the Limit Order against the PIP Order would cause a violation of BOX priority rules. First, in this example, executing the Limit Order against the PIP Order at the National Best Bid of $2.00 would violate the time priority of the $2.00 order on the BOX Book that is the BOX Best Bid price. Additionally, if the Limit Order did not immediately execute against the PIP Order, the Limit Order would have been executed at $2.00 with the BOX Best Bid, which would be a priority violation of the PIP Order, which can trade at $2.01. In order to not violate priority rules and also to not hold up the Limit Order from executing against a matching order, BSE has chosen to strike a balance among the competing principles and give the PIP Order as well as the Limit Order the price improvement that is immediately available. In contrast, the PIP would continue if the Limit Order in Example E had a limit price of $2.05 instead of $2.00, making it non-marketable, in which case the Limit Order would be placed on the BOX Book and displayed. Meanwhile, BOX gives the PIP Order the opportunity for further improvement. Since the Limit Order price of $2.05 is better than the best Improvement Order at $2.07, the Limit Order might be available to execute against the PIP Order at the end of the PIP process. 21 21 The Limit Order could be cancelled before the end of the PIP, in which case the Limit Order would not be available to execute with the PIP Order. Example F— Table F NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against PIP order PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Sell at 2.00 30 YES 2.01 If we take Example E above and make the following changes in the market scenario: A Limit Order to sell 30 contracts with a limit price of $2.00 is submitted to BOX, the Limit Order would be partially executed against the PIP Order at $2.01 and the remainder of the Limit Order (10 contracts) would be filtered from trading through the NBBO pursuant to the Filter Rule and execute with the size of BOX Bid at $2.00. However, if in this Example F the Limit Order was a Limit Order to sell 10 contracts, the Limit Order would be executed in full against the PIP Order at $2.01, and the remainder of the PIP Order would continue in the PIP process. B. The BOX BBO Does Not Equal the NBBO When the BOX Best Bid (Offer) is lower (higher) than the National Best Bid (Offer) and neither the best Improvement Order nor BOX Best Offer
(Bid)is equal to or crosses the National Best Bid (Offer), the PIP Order will execute against the Limit Order and the execution price will be the National Best Bid (Offer). Example G — Table G NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against PIP order PIP order execution 2.05-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Sell at 2.00 15 YES 2.05 As shown in Table G, assume the NBBO in the relevant series is $2.05 bid and $2.10 offer and the BBO is at $2.00 bid −$2.10 offer, the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts, and the best Improvement Order is $2.07. Then an opposite side unrelated Limit Order to sell 15 contracts at $2.00 is received. Because the Sell Limit Order price is lower than or equal to the National Best Bid at $2.05 ( *i.e.* , marketable), the BOX Best Bid of $2.00 is lower than the National Best Bid at $2.05, and the best Improvement Order at $2.07 does not equal or cross the National Best Bid at $2.05, the Sell Limit Order will be immediately executed in full against the PIP Order at the National Best Bid of $2.05. The PIP will proceed to duration for 5 contracts, which may or may not receive additional Improvement Orders lower than the $2.07 price (perhaps to the best possible price for the PIP Order of $2.01). BSE wants to maximize the price to the PIP Order while limiting the market risk to the Limit Order, by having BOX give the Limit Order the opportunity to execute as soon as a matching order is available. In this case it is the PIP Order that is immediately available at the price of $2.05, which provides price improvement to both the PIP Order and the Limit Order. This situation occurs because the BOX Best Bid of $2.00 is lower than the National Best Bid of $2.05, so pursuant to the Filter Rule, the BOX system will seek to have the Limit Order executed at the National Best Bid price of $2.05. Since this price is lower than the BOX Best Offer ($2.10), and also lower than the best Improvement Order ($2.07), the Limit Order is also the best price available for the PIP Order. Therefore, in order to maximize the price improvement to the PIP Order the unrelated opposite side Limit Order will immediately execute against the PIP Order ensuring the PIP Order a $2.05 price for 15 contracts. The benefit of this policy can also be shown by contrasting it with the possible outcomes if BOX allowed the PIP to continue without immediately executing the Limit Order against the PIP Order. In this situation, if the Limit Order does not execute against the PIP Order, then the Limit Order would be exposed on the BOX Book at $2.05 to seek a buy order at $2.05. However, the Limit Order could be cancelled prior to the receipt of a response, in which case the PIP Order would end up trading with the Improvement Order at an inferior price ($2.07) to the Limit Order price ($2.05). Alternatively, allowing the Limit Order to be exposed on the BOX Book at $2.05 could result in the submission of a responsive buy order, which would stop the PIP at that point because the buy order is a same side unrelated order. Therefore, it is more reasonable to avoid this unnecessary, and potentially detrimental, delay and instead follow Example G by immediately executing the PIP Order and the Limit Order at $2.05 upon receipt of the Limit Order. C. Addition Example—Opposite Side Limit Order In order to further clarify the operation of the rule for opposite side Limit Orders, consider the following example where the Limit Order *does not* immediately execute against the PIP Order. Example H— Table H NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against PIP order PIP order execution 2.05-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.05 Sell at 2.00 15 NO 2.05 Take Example G above and make the following changes in the market scenario: The price of the best Improvement Order is $2.05. The Limit Order will not immediately execute against the PIP Order at $2.05 because the PIP Order is already likely to receive at least a partial execution at $2.05 with the best Improvement Order. 22 Therefore, the PIP continues in order to seek further price improvement with the unrelated Limit Order being exposed as a sell at $2.05 in accordance with the Filter Rule. 22 This occurs even if the aggregate quantity of the best Improvement Orders at $2.05 or lower do not equal the full size of the PIP Order ( *i.e.* , the system does not check to determine that the combined quantity of all the Improvement Orders at $2.05 or lower is for the full size quantity of the PIP Order). *See* Example I. IV. Matching Unrelated Orders In order to further clarify the operation of the rule for unrelated Limit Orders as discussed above, consider the following example where the first unrelated Limit Order *does not* terminate the PIP and a second unrelated order that could match the first is received by BOX. Example I— Table I NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price IO size #1 Limit order price #1 Limit order size #2 Limit order price #2 Limit order size PIP order execution 2.05-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.05 5 Sell at 2.00 20 Buy at 2.05 20 2.05 Take Example H above and make the following changes in the market scenario: The size of the best Improvement Order at $2.05 is only 5 contracts; a “same side” unrelated order is also received (Limit Order #2). As in Example H, the “opposite side” Limit Order #1 will not immediately execute against the PIP Order at $2.05 because the PIP Order is already likely to receive at least a partial execution at $2.05 with the best Improvement Order (in this case 5 contracts). Therefore, the PIP continues in order to seek further price improvement with the unrelated Limit Order #1 being exposed as a sell at $2.05 in accordance with the Filter Rule. However, if a buy order for $2.05 is received in response to the exposure of the sell Limit Order #1, this Limit Order #2 would also be considered an unrelated same side Limit Order. As in Example C, since the buy Limit Order price of $2.05 is lower than the National Best Offer at $2.10 and the limit price equals the price of the best Improvement Order ($2.05), then the PIP will immediately terminate. As stated above, when the PIP is prematurely terminated, the PIP Order is matched against the best prevailing orders on BOX (whether Improvement Orders or unrelated orders received by BOX during the PIP). 23 Therefore, in this Example I the PIP Order will execute in full—5 contracts against the best Improvement Order at $2.05 and the remaining 15 contracts against the exposed opposite side unrelated Limit Order #1 at $2.05 because the Limit Order was next in time priority. Since the two unrelated orders match, the remaining size of Limit Order #1 will then execute 5 contracts against Limit Order #2 at $2.05. The remaining 15 contracts of Limit Order #2 will then be placed on the BOX Book and displayed at $2.05. 23 Pursuant to Paragraph (e)(iii) of Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules. Additional Matching Unrelated Order Examples Example J— Table J NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against second limit order PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.07 Sell at 2.05 20 NO 2.05 As shown in Table J, assume the NBBO and the BOX BBO in the relevant series is $2.00 bid—$2.10 offer and the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts. The PIP starts at $2.09 (one penny better than the National Best Offer). During the PIP interval, Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.07. Then, assume a Limit Order to sell 20 contracts ( *i.e.* , opposite side of the market from the PIP Order) with a limit price of $2.05 is submitted to BOX. The PIP would continue because the Sell Limit Order price is higher than the National Best Bid, making it non-marketable, in which case the Limit Order would be placed on the BOX Book and displayed as the new BOX Best Offer (and new National Best Offer) at $2.05. Meanwhile, BOX gives the PIP Order the opportunity for further improvement. Since the Limit Order price of $2.05 is better than the best Improvement Order at $2.07, the Limit Order might be available to execute against the PIP Order at the end of the PIP process. Then a Limit Order to buy 20 contracts ( *i.e.* on the same side of the market as the PIP Order), with a limit price of $2.05 is submitted to BOX. Since the buy Limit Order price of $2.05 is equal to the new National Best Offer, then the PIP immediately terminates. The Sell Limit Order would be executed with the PIP Order in full at $2.05. The Buy Limit Order would be placed on the BOX Book and displayed as the BOX Best Bid at $2.05. Example K— Table K NBBO BOX BBO PIP order Best IO price Limit order price Limit order size Execute against second limit order PIP order execution 2.00-2.10 2.00-2.10 Buy 20k 2.04 Sell at 2.05 20 YES 2.05 As shown in Table K, assume the NBBO and the BOX BBO in the relevant series is $2.00 bid—$2.10 offer and the PIP Order is a buy order for 20 contracts. The PIP starts at $2.09 (one penny better than the National Best Offer). The only difference from Example J is that during the PIP interval Improvement Orders are submitted to the PIP until the price of the best Improvement Order is $2.04. Then, assume a Limit Order to sell 20 contracts ( *i.e.* , opposite side of the market from the PIP Order) with a limit price of $2.05 is submitted to BOX. The PIP would continue because the Sell Limit Order price is higher than the National Best Bid, making it non-marketable, in which case the Limit Order would be placed on the BOX Book and displayed as the new BOX Best Offer (and new National Best Offer) at $2.05. Meanwhile, BOX gives the PIP Order the opportunity for further improvement. Since the Limit Order price of $2.05 is worse than the best Improvement Order at $2.04, the Limit Order would not execute against the PIP Order at the end of the PIP process. Then a Limit Order to buy 20 contracts ( *i.e.* on the same side of the market as the PIP Order), with a limit price of $2.05 is submitted to BOX. Since the buy Limit Order price of $2.05 is equal to the new National Best Offer, then the PIP immediately terminates. The best Improvement Order would be executed with the PIP Order in full at $2.04. The Sell Limit Order would then execute with the Buy Limit Order in full at $2.05. V. Improvement Order Clarification The BOX Trading Host does not accept Improvement Orders that lock or cross the BOX Book on the same side of the market as the PIP Order. To accept such Improvement Orders would violate the price priority of the resting orders on the BOX Book. VI. Reports BSE is currently obligated to provide certain reports to the Commission that provide data about BOX-Top and Market Orders that terminate the PIP prematurely, as well as BOX-Top and Market Orders that immediately execute against a PIP Order. BSE represents that it will provide the same information for Limit Orders that terminate the PIP prematurely or immediately execute against a PIP Order. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 24 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 25 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, 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 clarifying the treatment of Limit Orders that are submitted to the BOX during a PIP and that certain Improvement Orders are not accepted by the BOX Trading Host. 24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 25 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 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 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 such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-BSE-2006-03 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-BSE-2006-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-03 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 26 26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-406 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55058; File No. SR-DTC-2006-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding the Security Holder Report Service to the Security Position Report Service January 8, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on November 17, 2006, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and on January 5, 2007, amended the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add a new service, the Security Holder Report (“SHR”) service, to DTC's Security Position Report (“SPR”) service. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by DTC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change SPRs are reports prepared by DTC that show for each issuer whose securities are eligible for DTC's book entry services the identity of each DTC participant having that issuer's securities credited to its participant account and the quantity of that issuer's securities that the DTC participant has credited to its participant account as of a selected date. Most securities are registered with the issuer's transfer agent in the name of DTC's nominee, Cede & Co. Issuers rely on DTC to provide them with SPR information. DTC also provides SPR information to trustees and authorized third party agents. These entities typically need SPR information provided by DTC in order to properly conduct proxy, record date, and voting rights related functions. Some authorized users of the SPR service also perform regulatory reporting functions for which they require the participants' identities but do not need the corresponding quantity of securities credited to each participant. Currently, such users are required to order from DTC an SPR, which costs $120 per CUSIP. In order to mitigate user expenses, DTC is proposing to offer the SHR service as part of its SPR service. The SHR will allow authorized users to obtain reports with only participant identity. SHRs will result in lower production costs to DTC and in greater protection of participant information and will allow a lower fee to be charged than that for standard SPRs. The SHR fees are:
(i)$55.00 per CUSIP for the first 500 CUSIPS and
(ii)$6.00 per CUSIP for requests of 501 or more CUSIPS. The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 3 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. 3 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact on or impose any burden on competition.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 5 thereunder because the proposed rule change effects a change in an existing service of DTC that
(i)does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is responsible and
(ii)does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of DTC or persons using the service. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 6 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4). 6 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on January 5, 2007, the date on which the last amendment to the proposed rule change was filed with the Commission. 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-DTC-2006-17 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-DTC-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 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 DTC and on DTC's Web site at *https://login.dtcc.com/dtcorg/.* All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2006-17 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-389 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55053; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-38] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Trade iShares® S&P Global Index Funds and iShares® MSCI EAFE Index Fund Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges 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 October 18, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposal from interested persons and to approve the proposal on an accelerated basis. 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, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”) proposes to trade shares (“Shares”) of the following index funds (“Funds”) 3 pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3): 3 *See* e-mail dated January 4, 2007 from Michael Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc. to Mitra Mehr, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, reflecting a technical correction to the names of the relevant funds. • iShares S&P Global Energy Sector Index Fund (Symbol: IXC) • iShares S&P Global Financials Sector Index Fund
(IXG)• iShares S&P Global Health Care Sector Index Fund
(IXJ)• iShares S&P Global Telecommunications Sector Index Fund
(IXP)• iShares S&P Global Information Technology Sector Index Fund
(IXN)• iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund
(ITF)• iShares S&P Latin America 40 Index Fund (ILF); and • iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund
(EFA)The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.nysearca.com* ), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III 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 is proposing to trade the Shares pursuant to UTP. The index underlying each Fund (“each, an Index”) consists of both U.S. and/or foreign stocks. The investment objective of each Fund is to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of its underlying Index. In seeking to achieve its respective investment objective, each Fund utilizes a “representative sampling” strategy, which is a passive investment strategy, to track its applicable Index. Each Fund will attempt to hold a representative sample of the Index's component securities utilizing quantitative analytical models. At least 90% of each Fund's total assets will be invested in the Index's component securities. Each Fund also may invest up to 10% of its total assets in stocks that are not included in its Index. The Commission previously approved the original listing and trading of the Shares on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 4 The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The trading hours for the Shares on the Exchange are the same as those set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34, except that the Shares, with the exception of iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund, will not trade during the Opening Session (4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time) unless the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value (“IOPV”) is calculated and disseminated during that time. The iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund will trade during the Opening Session since there is no overlap in trading hours of the Opening Session and the foreign markets trading the S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund securities. Also the last calculated IOPV for this Fund is available to investors during the Opening Session by means of the consolidated tape or major market data vendors and remains unchanged during the Opening Session. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44700 (August 14, 2001), 66 FR 43927 (August 21, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-34). Quotations for and last sale information regarding the Shares for each Fund are disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System. The provider of each underlying Index disseminates the value of such index intra-day on a real-time basis as individual component securities of the underlying Index change in price. The intra-day value of each underlying Index is disseminated every 15 seconds throughout Amex's trading day by organizations authorized by each respective underlying Index provider. Amex disseminates the net asset value (“NAV”) for each Fund on a daily basis and the final dividend amounts that each Fund pays. To provide updated information relating to the Shares for use by investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem them, Amex disseminates the IOPV for each Fund as calculated by a securities information provider. The IOPV is disseminated on a per-share basis every 15 seconds during regular Amex trading hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time, depending on the time Amex specifies for the trading of the Shares. For the iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund, there is no overlap in trading hours between the foreign markets trading the underlying Index component securities and Amex. Therefore, for this Fund, the IOPV is calculated based on closing prices in the principal foreign market for securities in the Fund portfolio, which are then converted from the applicable foreign currency to U.S. dollars. The IOPV for this Fund is updated every 15 seconds during Amex's regular trading hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time, as applicable, to reflect changes in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the applicable foreign currency. Each of the other Funds includes companies trading in markets with trading hours overlapping Amex's regular trading hours. During the overlap period for these Funds, an IOPV calculator updates an IOPV every 15 seconds to reflect price changes in the principal foreign markets, and converts such prices into U.S. dollars based on the current currency exchange rates. When the foreign market or markets are closed but Amex is open for trading, the IOPV is updated every 15 seconds to reflect changes in currency exchange rates. The IOPV may not reflect the value of all securities included in the applicable underlying Index, and the IOPV does not necessarily reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of securities held by each Fund at a particular point in time. Therefore, the IOPV on a per-share basis disseminated during Amex's regular trading hours should not be viewed as a real-time update of the NAV of a particular Fund, which is calculated only once a day. The IOPV is intended to closely approximate the value per-share of the portfolio of securities for a Fund and provide for a close proxy of the NAV at a greater frequency for investors. The Commission has granted each Fund an exemption from certain prospectus delivery requirements under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”). 5 Any product description used in reliance on the Section 24(d) exemptive order will comply with all representations made and all conditions contained in the application for orders under the 1940 Act. 6 5 15 U.S.C. 80a-24(d). 6 *See In the Matter of iShares, Inc., et al.,* Investment Company Act Release No. 25623 (June 25, 2002). In connection with the trading of the Shares, the Exchange would inform ETP Holders in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares, including how they are created and redeemed, the prospectus or product description delivery requirements applicable to the Shares, applicable Exchange rules, how information about the value of each underlying Index is disseminated, and trading information. In addition, before an ETP Holder recommends a transaction in the Shares, the ETP Holder must determine that the Shares are suitable for the customer, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a)-(b). The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products to monitor trading in the Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to monitor Exchange trading of the Shares. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market, and to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act 9 because it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 17 CFR 240.12f-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 Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. 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-NYSEArca-2006-38 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-NYSEArca-2006-38. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-38 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit investors by increasing competition among markets that trade the Shares. 10 In approving this 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). In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act, 12 which permits an exchange to trade, pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another exchange. 13 The Commission notes that it previously approved the listing and trading of the Shares on Amex. 14 The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act, 15 which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets this requirement because it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. 12 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (f). 13 Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (a), generally prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national securities exchange unless the security is registered on that exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an exchange “extends UTP.” When an exchange extends UTP to a security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so listed and registered. 14 *See supra* note 3. 15 17 CFR 240.12f-5. The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 16 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Quotations for and last sale information regarding the Shares are disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System. Furthermore, an IOPV calculator updates the applicable IOPV every 15 seconds to reflect price changes in the principal foreign markets and converts such prices into U.S. dollars based on the current currency exchange rate. When the foreign market or markets are closed but Amex is open for trading, the IOPV is updated every 15 seconds to reflect changes in currency exchange rates. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 describes the situations when the Exchange would halt trading when the IOPV or the value of the Index underlying one of the Funds is not calculated or widely available. 16 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). The Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by Amex, the original listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade the Shares pursuant to this order. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations: 1. The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to monitor the trading of the Shares. 2. In connection with the trading of the Shares, the Exchange would inform ETP Holders in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. 3. The Information Circular would inform participants of the prospectus or product delivery requirements applicable to the Shares. This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these representations. The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted previously, the Commission previously found that the listing and trading of the Shares on Amex is consistent with the Act. The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit that earlier finding or preclude the trading of the Shares on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for the Shares. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 17 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-38) is approved on an accelerated basis. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-390 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55051; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Uniform Definition of Complex Trade 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 January 3, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 substantially 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 NYSE Arca proposes to modify the definition of “Complex Trade” in NYSE Arca Rule 6.92(a)(4). The text of the proposed rule change appears below, with additions *italicized* and deletions in [brackets]: Rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 6.92 Definitions
(a)The following terms have the meaning specified in this Rule solely for the purposes of Rules 6.92-6.95. (1)-(3) No Change.
(4)“Complex Trade” means the execution of an order in an option series in conjunction with the execution of one or more related order(s) in different options series in the same underlying security occurring at or near the same time *for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy and for an equivalent number of contracts, provided that the number of contracts of the legs of a spread, straddle, or combination order may differ by a permissible ratio* [for the equivalent number of contracts and for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy]. *The permissible ratio for this purpose is any ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).* (5)-(21) No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has substantially 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 NYSE Arca Rule 6.92(a)(4) defines a “Complex Trade” as it pertains to the Options Intermarket Linkage (“Linkage”). Under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage, the term “Complex Trade” may be defined, and periodically redefined, by the Options Linkage Authority Operating Committee (the “Committee”). On September 15, 2006, the Committee voted to update the definition of “Complex Trade” in order to include transactions in more than one options series in any ratio from one-to-three (.333) to three-to-one (3.00). Accordingly, the participant exchanges agreed to adopt and file uniform rules defining “Complex Trade” in furtherance of the Linkage. NYSE Arca believes that a uniform definition of Complex Trade will facilitate the best execution of complex orders and resolve potential trade-through liability issues by eliminating conflicting definitions among the participant exchanges. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 4 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NYSE Arca does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others NYSE Arca neither solicited nor received written comments with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-NYSEArca-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-NYSEArca-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 Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-01 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-405 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Women's Business Council; Public Meeting In accordance with the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 106-554 as amended, the National Women's Business Council
(NWBC)will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, starting at 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Eisenhower Conference Rooms A & B, 409 Third Street, SW., Second floor, Washington, DC 20024. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the NWBC's fiscal year 2007 strategy, agenda and action items, legislative updates, and status of fiscal year 2006 projects, along with an exchange of ideas about goals for the women's business community for the next three, five and ten years. Anyone wishing to attend the Council meeting must contact Katherine Stanley no later than Friday, February 2, 2007 by e-mail at *katherine.stanley@sba.gov* or fax to 202-205-6825. Anyone wishing to make a presentation to the Council during the meeting must contact Margaret M. Barton in writing at the National Women's Business Council, 409 Third Street, SW., Suite 210, Washington, DC 20024, by e-mail at *Margaret.barton@sba.gov* or fax to 202-205-6825 by Friday, January 26, 2007, in order to be put on the agenda. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-402 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region II Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)Region II Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Friday, January 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting will take place at Madison Square Garden—Theater Entrance, 7th Avenue between W 32nd and W 33rd Streets, New York, NY 10001. The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Herbert Austin, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the agenda. Herbert Austin, Deputy District Director, SBA, New York District Office, 26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3100, New York, NY 10278, phone
(212)264-1482 and fax
(202)401-2224, e-mail: *Herbert.austin@sba.gov.* For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-400 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting will take place at BellSouth Building, Economic Development Theatre, (Mezzanine Level), 333 Commerce Street, Nashville, TN 37201. The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Jose Mendez, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the agenda. Jose Mendez, Agency Event Coordinator, SBA, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, phone
(202)205-6178 and fax
(202)401-2707, e-mail: *Jose.mendez@sba.gov.* For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-401 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5665] Industry Advisory Panel: Notice of Open Meeting The Industry Advisory Panel of Overseas Buildings Operations will meet on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be held in room 1107 of the U.S. Department of State, located at 2201 C Street, NW., (entrance on 23rd Street) Washington, DC. For logistical and security reasons, it is imperative that everyone enter and exit using only the 23rd Street entrance. The majority of the meeting is devoted to an exchange of ideas between the Department's Bureau of Overseas Building Operations' senior management and the panel members, on design, operations and building maintenance. Members of the public are asked to kindly refrain from joining the discussion until Director Williams opens the discussion to the public. Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend should provide, by February 2, 2007, their name, professional affiliation, date of birth, citizenship, and a valid government-issued ID number (i.e., U.S. government ID, U.S. military ID, passport, or drivers license (and state)) by e-mailing: *iapr@state.gov<mailto:iapr@state.gov>* . Due to limited space, please remember that only one person per company may register. If you have any questions, please contact Andrea Specht at *spechtam@state.gov* or on
(703)516-1544. Dated: January 7, 2007. Charles E. Williams, Director & Chief Operating Officer, Overseas Buildings Operations, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-421 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5427] Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law A meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law will take place on Friday, January 26, 2007, from 10 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m., in Room 1105 of the United States Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be chaired by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, John B. Bellinger, III, and will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. Participants at the meeting will discuss a range of issues relating to current international legal topics, including the effectiveness of international trade law and international human rights law; issues related to the Geneva Conventions; the legal framework for detention and trial of international terrorists; and issues relating to the immunities of foreign states and international organizations and their respective officials. Entry to the building is controlled and will be facilitated by advance arrangements. Members of the public who wish to attend the session should, by Wednesday, January 24, 2007, notify the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Claims and Investment Disputes (telephone: 202-647-8351) of their name, date of birth; citizenship (country); ID number, *i.e.* , U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), passport (country) or driver's license (state); professional affiliation, address and telephone number in order to arrange admittance. This includes admittance for government employees as well as others. All attendees must use the “C” Street entrance. One of the following valid IDs will be required for admittance: any U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. government agency ID. Because an escort is required at all times, attendees should expect to remain in the meeting for the entire morning or afternoon session. Dated: January 10, 2007. Karin L. Kizer, Attorney Adviser, Office of Claims and Investment Disputes, Office of the Legal Adviser, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-512 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5664] International Security Advisory Board
(ISAB)Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 section 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board, formerly the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB), to take place on February 5, 2007, at the Department of State, Washington, DC. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 § 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of national defense and foreign policy because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament and international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting includes classified discussions related to the Board's ongoing studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism and Space Policy as well as discussions regarding international nuclear proliferation and related aspects of public diplomacy. For more information, contact Matthew Zartman, Deputy Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone:
(202)736-4244. Dated: January 5, 2007. George W. Look, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-422 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-27-P SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Notice of Action by the Commission Approving Projects and Certain Other Items AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). ACTION: Notice of action by the Commission approving projects and certain other items. SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 *et seq.* (the “Compact”) and its Regulations for Review of Projects, 18 CFR Parts 803, 804 and 805, the SRBC, following a public hearing, approved certain water resources projects and took certain other actions listed below at its meeting held in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania on December 5, 2006. *Opportunity For Review:* In accordance with Section 3.10(6) of the Compact and Paragraph
(o)of the Federal Reservations to the Compact, all such actions of the SRBC are reviewable in federal district court provided that an action for such review is commenced within 90 days from the effective date of the determination sought to be reviewed. For purposes of judicial review, the effective date for actions identified in this notice shall be the date of publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, Ext. 306; Fax: 717-238-2436; e-mail: *rcairo@srbc.net* or Michael G. Brownell, Chief, Water Resources Management, 717-238-0425, Ext. 223; Fax: 717-238-2436; e-mail *mbrownell@srbc.net.* Further details on the docket actions taken on the projects listed below are also available on SRBC's Web site at *http://www.srbc.net.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Approved Projects 1. Albany International—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day averages) of 0.125 mgd from Well 1, 0.125 mgd from Well 2, 0.100 mgd from Well 3, and 0.050 mgd from Well 4, and a total groundwater withdrawal limit of 0.380 mgd, for manufacture of monofilament, Village of Homer, Cortland County, New York. 2. Knight Settlement Sand & Gravel, LLC—Consumptive water use of up to 0.198 mgd, for processing of sand and gravel and concrete production, Town of Bath, Steuben County, New York. 3. United Water PA—Dallas Operation—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day average) of 0.216 mgd from the Gephart Well, and a total system withdrawal limit (30-day average) of 0.740 mgd, for public water supply, Dallas Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. 4. Blue Ridge Trail Golf Club, Inc.—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day averages) of 0.099 mgd from Well 1, 0.096 mgd from Well 2, and 0.086 mgd from Well 3, and a total groundwater withdrawal limit of 0.185 mgd, for golf course irrigation, Dorrance and Rice Townships, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. 5. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc,—Well ER-4—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day average) of 0.072 mgd from well er-4, for public water supply, Black Creek and Hazle Townships, Luzerne County, and East Union Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. 6. Eagle Rock Resort Co.—Wells A and C—Surface water withdrawal of up to 3.068 mgd from an abandoned quarry, and groundwater withdrawal (30-day averages) of 0.144 mgd from Well A and 0.072 mgd of groundwater from Well C, and a consumptive water use of up to 0.675 mgd, for snowmaking and golf course irrigation, Black Creek and Hazle Townships, Luzerne County, and East Union Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. 7. PPL Montour, LLC—Surface water withdrawal of up to 36.000 mgd, from West Branch Susquehanna River, Delaware Township, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, and consumptive water use of up to 26.200 mgd (peak day) for power plant operation and flue gas desulfurization at the Montour Steam Electric Station, and for the ancillary production of commercial wallboard, Derry Township, Montour County, Pennsylvania. 8. Sunnyside Ethanol, LLC—Surface water withdrawal of up to 1.980 mgd, from West Branch Susquehanna River, and a consumptive water use of up to 1.600 mgd, for manufacture of fuel grade ethanol and carbon dioxide, Curwensville Borough, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. 9. Country Club of Harrisburg—Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.382 mgd, when available, from Fishing Creek, and a consumptive water use of up to 0.382 mgd, for golf course irrigation, Middle Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 10. Country Club of Harrisburg—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day averages) of 0.162 mgd from Well 1, when available, and 0.043 mgd from Well 2, for golf course irrigation, Middle Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 11. Middlesex Township Municipal Authority—Groundwater Withdrawal (30-Day Average) of 1.440 mgd from Well 1, for Public Water Supply, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 12. New Morgan Landfill Company, Inc., dba Conestoga Landfill—Consumptive water use of up to 0.085 mgd, for landfill operations, Robeson and Caernarvon Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 13. Morgantown Properties, LP—Withdrawal of up to 0.288 mgd from Mill Pond Reservoir, for public water supply, and consumptive water use through an out-of-basin diversion of up to 0.040 mgd, for water supply to the Robeson Woods and Joanna Furnace Developments, Berks County, Pennsylvania, and an into-basin diversion of up to 0.040 mgd of wastewater, from the Robeson Woods and Joanna Furnace Developments, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 14. Manheim Township—Groundwater withdrawal (30-day averages) of 0.120 mgd from the Foundation Well and 0.210 mgd from Golf Course Well, and consumptive water use of up to 0.330 mgd, for irrigation of a golf course and ancillary recreational areas, Manheim Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 15. Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority—Frey Farm and Creswell Landfills—Consumptive water use of up to 0.065 mgd for landfill operations, and a total groundwater withdrawal (30-day average) of 0.880 mgd, for leachate collection and treatment, Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 16. Exelon Generation Co., LLC-Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station—Surface water withdrawal of up to 2,363.620 mgd, from Conowingo Reservoir, Drumore Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and consumptive water use of up to 32.490 mgd (Peak Day) for power plant operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Drumore Township, Lancaster County, and Peach Bottom Township, York County, Pennsylvania. 17. Town of Perryville—Withdrawal of up to 1.000 mgd from the Susquehanna River, and consumptive water use through an out-of-basin diversion of up to 1.000 mgd, for water supply to the Town of Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. 18. City of Baltimore Department of Public Works—Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.360 mgd, from the Susquehanna River, for filtration plant design studies, Harford County, Maryland. In other action, the Commission accepted a settlement in lieu of penalty offer from AES Ironwood, L.L.C., of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon Co., Pa.; approved a final rulemaking action published separately in the **Federal Register** on December 29, 2006 at pages 78569-78593; extended a suspension of its consumptive use regulation to agricultural water users, pending an anticipated resolution of this issue by the member states; and revised its project fee schedule for project review applications. Dated: January 4, 2007. Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-391 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7040-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending January 5, 2007 The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-26818. *Date Filed:* January 5, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23 Africa-South East Asia Resolutions and Fares Tables (Memo 0313) Minutes: TC23 Middle East, Africa TC3 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference (Memo 0321) Intended effective date: 1 April 2007. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-26819. *Date Filed:* January 5, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/123 Middle East-South East Asia Resolutions and Fares Tables (Memo 0308) Minutes: TC23 Middle East, Africa-TC3 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference (Memo 0317) Intended effective date: 1 April 2007. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-407 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 5, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et. seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* OST-1996-2016. *Date Filed:* January 3, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 24, 2007. *Description:* Application of Continental Airlines, Inc., requesting renewal of its Route 739 certificate to provide scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Newark and the coterminal points Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-26807. *Date Filed:* January 3, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 24, 2007. *Description:* Application of Inter Island Airways, Inc., requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing interstate and foreign scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail in the following geographic areas: Tutuila Island, American Samoa; Ofu Island and Tau Island of the Manu' a Group in American Samoa; and Maota and Faleolo, Independent State of Samoa. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-408 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2007-26824] Notice of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to renew an information collection. We published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information collection on November 7, 2006. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2007-26824. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Walterscheid,
(720)963-3073, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* State Right-of-Way Operations Manuals. *OMB Control Number:* 2125-0586. *Background:* Section 23, of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 710, reduces Federal regulatory requirements and places primary responsibility for a number of approval actions at the State level. Part 710.201 requires that States must certify at 5-year intervals that their State Right-of-Way Operations Manuals are representative of their procedures, or submit an updated manual. State Transportation Departments
(STDs)are required to update their manuals to reflect changes in Federal requirements for programs administered under Title 23 U.S.C. These manuals reflect how the STDs plan to perform real estate acquisition and property management, and maintain the integrity of the right-of-way for highway and related transportation systems. The State manuals may be submitted to FHWA electronically or they can be made available by postings on State Web sites. *Respondents:* 50 State Departments of Transportation, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. *Frequency:* The States update their operations manuals for review annually. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* 75 hours per respondent. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* The total is 3,900 burden hours annually. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: January 9, 2007. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis, Division. [FR Doc. E7-395 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 10, 2007. The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Dates:* Written comments should be received on or before February 15, 2007. *OMB Number:* 1559-0023. *Type of Review:* Revision. *Form:* CDFI 0011. *Title:* NMTC Program Allocation Agreement—Disclosure, Audited Financial Statements. *Description:* Entities receiving a New Markets Tax Credit Program Allocation must enter into an allocation agreement with the CDFI Fund. The allocation agreement contains certain disclosure and reporting requirements. *Respondents:* State, Local and Tribal Governments, Business and other for profit and Not for profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 76 hours. *OMB Number:* 1559-0011. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Form:* CDFI 0016. *Title:* Conflict of Interest Package for CDFI Fund Non-Federal Readers. *Description:* The CDFI Fund seeks to collect information from potential contractors hired to evaluate Fund program applications to identify, evaluate, and avoid potential conflicts of interest which the contractors may have with such applications. *Respondents:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 112 hours. *OMB Number:* 1559-0024. *Type of Review:* Revision. *Form:* CDFI 0010. *Title:* New Markets Tax Credit
(NMTC)Program Allocation Tracking System (ATS). *Description:* The purpose of the NMTC Program ATS is to obtain information on investors making qualified investments in community development entities that receive a New Markets Tax Credit allocation. *Respondents:* State, Local and Tribal Governments, Business and other for profit and Not for profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 2,040 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Ashanti McCallum
(202)622-9018. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-458 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-70-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements (12 CFR Part 35).” DATES: Comments must be received by March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0219, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling
(202)874-5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0219, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, or Camille Dickerson,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection: *Title:* Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements (12 CFR Part 35). *OMB Number:* 1557-0219. *Description:* This submission covers an existing regulation and involves no change to the regulation, the information collection requirements, or the burden estimates. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its approval of the information collection. National banks and their affiliates (hereinafter referred to collectively as national banks) occasionally enter into agreements with nongovernmental entities or persons (NGEPs) that are related to national banks' Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA)responsibilities. Section 48 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) requires disclosure of certain of these agreements, and imposes reporting requirements on national banks and other insured depository institutions (IDIs), their affiliates, and NGEPs. 12 U.S.C. 1831y. As mandated by the FDI Act, the OCC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of Thrift Supervision issued regulations to implement these disclosure and reporting requirements. The reporting provisions of these regulations constitute collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The regulation issued by the OCC is codified at 12 CFR 35; the collections of information contained in that regulation are known as “CRA Sunshine.” Section 48 of the FDI Act applies to written agreements that:
(1)Are made in fulfillment of the CRA,
(2)involve funds or other resources of an IDI or affiliate with an aggregate value of more than $10,000 in a year, or loans with an aggregate principal value of more than $50,000 in a year, and
(3)are entered into by an IDI or affiliate of an IDI and a NGEP. 12 U.S.C. 1831y(e). The parties to a covered agreement must make the agreement available to the public and the appropriate agency. The parties also must file a report annually with the appropriate agency concerning the disbursement, receipt and use of funds or other resources under the agreement. The collections of information in CRA Sunshine implement these statutorily mandated disclosure and reporting requirements. The parties to the agreement may request confidential treatment of proprietary and confidential information in an agreement or annual report. 12 CFR 35.8. 12 U.S.C. 1831y(a)-(c). The information collections are found in 12 CFR 35.4(b); 35.6(b)(1); 35.6(c)(1); 35.6(d)(1)(i) and (ii); 35.6(d)(2); 35.7(b); and 35.7(f)(2)(ii). *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals; Businesses or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 362. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 2,813. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 3,899. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: January 9, 2007. Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division. [FR Doc. E7-388 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Name Change—International Business & Mercantile REassurance Company AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 6 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2006 Revision, published June 30, 2006, at 71 FR 37694. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at
(202)874-6850. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: International Business & Mercantile REassurance Company (NAIC #21439), an Illinois corporation, has formally changed its name to Old Republic General Insurance Corporation, effective June 1, 2006. A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to Old Republic General Insurance Corporation, Chicago, Illinois. This new Certificate replaces the Certificate of Authority issued to this company under its former name. The underwriting limitation of $16,725,000 established for this company as of July 1, 2006, remains unchanged until June 30, 2007. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2006 Revision, to reflect this change. Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified ( *see* 31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, in the Circular, which outlines details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety business, and other information. The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.* Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Dated: December 22, 2006. Teresa Casswell, Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial Management Service. [FR Doc. 07-117 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
U.S. Code
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- National system for clearance and settlement of securities transactions§ 78q–1
- Registration of securities under Securities Act of 1933§ 80a–24
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- National market system for securities; securities information processors§ 78k–1
- CRA sunshine requirements§ 1831y
- Authority and revocation of authority of surety corporations§ 9305
CFR
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Changes, tests, and experiments.§ 50.59
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Application of subpart to ongoing environmental work.§ 51.12
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Release of information under FOIA.§ 35.8
- Fulfillment of the CRA.§ 35.4
register
13 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 2
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 5 USC 78s(b)(1)
- 17 CFR 240.12
- 15 USC 78
- Pub. L. 106-554
- Pub. L. 91-575
- 49 USC 1382
- 14 CFR 301.201
- 49 CFR 1.48
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 12 CFR 35
- 31 CFR 223
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite5 USC 78s(b)(1)
Cites 34 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources