Notices. Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities (EC) for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a result of EU enlargement

14,206 words·~65 min read·/register/2007/03/22/07-1391

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing on Potential Withdrawal of Tariff Concessions and Increase in Applied Duties in Response to European Union

(EU)Enlargement AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities

(EC)for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization

(WTO)rules as a result of EU enlargement. SUMMARY: The United States is continuing to negotiate with the EU regarding the EU's provision of adequate and permanent compensation to the United States for an event that increased duties on U.S. imports to EU markets above WTO bound rates of duty. On January 1, 2007, as part of its enlargement process, the EU raised tariffs above bound rates on some imports into the countries of Romania and Bulgaria. If this issue is not resolved, the United States may seek to exercise its rights under Article XXVIII of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994* (“GATT 1994”) to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions and raise tariffs on select goods primarily supplied by the EU. The Trade Policy Staff Committee

(TPSC)seeks public comment on the attached list of goods for which U.S. tariff concessions may be withdrawn and applied duties may be raised. The TPSC will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, on the list. DATES: Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention, as well as a copy of their testimony, by noon on April 19, 2007. A hearing will be held in Washington, DC on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. Written comments are due by noon on Thursday, April 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submissions by electronic mail to *FR0628@ustr.eop.gov;* requests to testify should also be addressed to Martez Higgins at e-mail: *FR0628@ustr.eop.gov.* Submissions can be sent by facsimile to: Martez Higgins at fax:

(202)395-3974. The public is strongly encouraged to submit documents electronically rather than by facsimile. (See requirements for submissions below). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about procedural questions, contact Martez Higgins at

(202)395-4620. All other questions should be directed to: Laurie Molnar, Director for European Trade Issues,

(202)395-3320 or MaryEllen Smith, Director Agricultural Trade Policy,

(202)395-6127; Office of the United States Trade Representative. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under WTO rules, the United States is entitled to compensation from the EU resulting from EU tariff changes as a result of EU enlargement. If agreement on compensation cannot be reached, the United States would be entitled to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions and apply increased duties on products of interest to the EU. *Enlargement:* With the accession to the EU of Romania and Bulgaria (“the new EU Member States”), the EU withdrew the entire WTO tariff schedules of the new EU Member States and applied the common external tariff of the EU of twenty five to imports into the territory of the new EU Member States, resulting in increased tariffs on certain products. *Legal Background:* Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 establishes that a WTO Member may modify or withdraw a tariff concession bound in its WTO schedule by negotiation and agreement with certain affected Members, more specifically, those Members that initially negotiated the relevant concession or are determined to have a principal supplying interest or a substantial interest in the concession. Such affected Members are entitled to receive adequate compensation or, in the absence of successful compensation negotiations, to withdraw “substantially equivalent concessions.” Pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994, where a WTO Member has modified or withdrawn a concession in the expansion of a customs union, the procedure under Article XXVIII also applies. The United States has negotiating and compensation rights on certain tariff concessions at issue as a result of enlargement. Affected WTO Members' rights to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII are time-limited; these rights expire within six months of the EU's withdrawal or modification of concessions unless exercised or extended. WTO Members intending to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions must provide notice to the WTO of their intent at least thirty days prior to the effective date of such action. Whenever a foreign country withdraws, suspends, or modifies the application of trade agreement obligations of benefit to the United States without granting adequate compensation, the President is authorized under section 125(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2135) to withdraw, suspend or modify the application of any substantially equivalent trade agreement obligations of benefit and proclaim under section 125(c) such increased duties or other import restrictions as are appropriate to effect adequate compensation. Section 125(c) authorizes the President to proclaim increased duties or other import restrictions as he deems necessary or appropriate in order to exercise the rights of the United States whenever the United States, acting in pursuance of its rights or obligations under certain trade agreements, withdraws, suspends or modifies any obligation with respect to foreign trade. Section 125(f) provides that the President, normally before taking any action under section 125 to withdraw, suspend, or modify trade agreement obligations or to increase duties, must provide for a public hearing, at which time interested persons will be given an opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard. Pursuant to section 125(c), any new tariff rates proclaimed by the President would not exceed 50 percent above the rate set forth in rate column numbered 2 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as in effect on January 1, 1975, or 20 percent *ad valorem* above the rate existing on January 1, 1975, whichever is higher. If imposed, the increased duties would apply to imports from all countries that are subject to the rates of duty set forth in the Column 1 General rate of duty column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The products affected by a suspension of concessions and duty increase would be drawn from the list of products set forth in the Annex to this notice. In recommending any action to the President under section 125, the TPSC will consider all comments and testimony by interested persons submitted in accordance with the procedures described below. Public Comment on Potential Actions; Hearing Participation Pursuant to section 125(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2135), the TPSC, chaired by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, has scheduled a public hearing beginning at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. Further details on the hearing and submission of testimony is provided below. In lieu of or in addition to participation at the public hearing, parties may submit written comments to be received no later than noon, Thursday, April 19, 2007. Written comments and/or written or oral testimony of interested persons should be limited to the following issues:

(1)The appropriateness of withdrawing WTO tariff concessions upon the products listed in the Annex to this notice;

(2)the appropriateness of imposing increased duties upon the products listed in the Annex to this notice;

(3)the levels at which U.S. customs duties should be set for particular items; and

(4)the degree to which increased duties might have an adverse effect upon U.S. consumers of the products listed in the Annex. Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide both a written notification of their intention and a copy of their testimony by noon on Thursday, April 19, 2007. The notification should include:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number, fax number, and firm or affiliation of the person wishing to testify;

(2)a short (one or two paragraph) summary of the oral presentation; and

(3)list of goods of interest (including HTSUS numbers). Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the TPSC. Requirements for Submissions In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, the TPSC strongly urges and prefers electronic (e-mail) submissions in response to this notice. In the event that an e-mail submission is impossible, submissions should be made by facsimile. Persons making submissions by e-mail should use the following subject line: “EU Enlargement” followed by (as appropriate) “Written Comments,” “Notice of Testimony,” or “Testimony.” Documents should be submitted as either Adobe PDF, WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel. For any document containing business confidential information submitted electronically, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Persons who make submissions by e-mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Written comments, notices of testimony, and testimony will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and non-confidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling

(202)395-6186. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. General information concerning USTR may be obtained by accessing its Internet Web site ( *http://www.ustr.gov* ). Annex: Proposed Withdrawal of Concessions Tariff List HTS# Description MFN rate 2007 MFN unit 2007 Proposed new tariff rate Proposed new tariff rate unit 02032920 Frozen retail cuts of meat of swine, nesoi 1.40 cents/kg 92.21 Cents/kg. 02101200 Bellies (streaky) and cuts thereof of swine, salted, in brine, dried or smoked 1.40 cents/kg 92.9 Cents/kg. 02101900 Meat of swine other than hams, shoulders, bellies (streaky) and cuts thereof, salted, in brine, dried or smoked 1.40 cents/kg 177.9 Cents/kg. 07129074 Tomatoes, dried in powder 9% 55% 16010020 Pork sausages and similar products of pork, pork offal or blood; food preparations based on these products 0.80 cents/kg 73.7 Cents/kg. 16024940 Prepared or preserved pork, not containing cereals or vegetables, nesi 1.40 cents/kg 72.8 Cents/kg. 20019025 Artichokes, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid 10% 55% 20032000 Truffles, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid 0 20% 20049010 Antipasto, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen 3% 50% 20079935 Peach jam 7% 55% 20087020 Peaches (excluding nectarines), otherwise prepared or preserved, not elsewhere specified or included 17% 55% 38099350 Finishing agents, dye carriers and other preparations used in leather and like industries, < 5% by weight aromatic (mod.) substance(s) 6% 55% 70133130 Glassware for table or kitchen purposes (o/than drinking glasses), of lead crystal, valued over $3 but n/over $5 each 10.5% 90% 71141130 Spoons and ladles with handles of sterling silver 3.3% 97.5% 84201020 Calendering or similar rolling machines for making paper pulp, paper or paperboard 0 55% Carmen Suro-Bredie, Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. E7-5268 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Summary:* In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Title and purpose of information collection:* Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States; OMB 3220-0155. Under the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), which amends Section 202(t) of the Social Security Act, the Tier I or the O/M (overall minimum) portion of an annuity and Medicare benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act to certain beneficiaries living outside the U.S., may be withheld effective January 1, 1985. The benefit withholding provision of Public Law 98-21 applies to divorced spouses, spouses, minor or disabled children, students, and survivors of railroad employees who

(1)Initially became eligible for Tier I amounts, O/M shares, and Medicare benefits after December 31, 1984;

(2)are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals; and

(3)have resided outside the U.S. for more than six consecutive months starting with the annuity beginning date. The benefit withholding provision does not apply, however to a beneficiary who is exempt under either a treaty obligation of the United States, in effect on August 1, 1956, or a totalization agreement between the United States and the country in which the beneficiary resides, or to an individual who is exempt under other criteria specified in Public Law 98-21. RRB Form G-45, Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States, is currently used by the RRB to determine applicability of the withholding provision of Public Law 98-21. Completion of the form is required to obtain or retain a benefit. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB estimates that 100 Form G-45s are completed annually. The completion time for Form G-45 is estimated at 10 minutes per response. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-45. *Additional Information or Comments:* To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at

(312)751-3363 or send an e-mail request to *Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV.* Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2092 or send an e-mail to *Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV.* Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5240 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55479; File No. SR-Amex-2006-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Clarifying the Continued Listing Standards for Units March 15, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 4, 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 Amex. On February 22, 2007, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to

(1)amend Section 1003(g) of the Amex Company Guide to strengthen the procedures applicable to units when their components fall below continued listing standards and clarify the application of continued listing standards to individual components comprising units once some (but not all) of the units have separated into their component parts and

(2)make minor, technical changes to Sections 1003(a), (c),

(d)and

(f)of the Amex Company Guide. The text of the proposal is available at Amex, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below, and the most significant aspects of such statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 1003(g) of the Amex *Company Guide* currently provides that the Exchange will “normally consider” suspending or delisting units if any of their component parts do not meet the applicable continued listing standards. However, if one or more of the components is otherwise qualified for listing, such component may remain listed. For example, a unit comprised of both a common stock component and a debt component would face suspension or delisting procedures if either the common stock or the debt component no longer met its applicable continued listing standards. As a result, if the debt component failed to meet the continued listing standards for bonds, both the unit and such debt component would be subject to suspension or delisting procedures, but the common stock component could independently remain listed and continue to trade on the Exchange, provided such common stock component met the continued listing standards for equity securities. The Exchange proposes to strengthen Section 1003(g) of the Amex *Company Guide* so that in the event a component of a unit does not meet its continued listing standards, the Exchange would no longer “consider” suspending or delisting the unit, but would commence a formal, continued listing evaluation of such component and unit in accordance with Section 1009 of the Amex *Company Guide.* Section 1009 sets forth the suspension and delisting procedures, timelines, and requirements applicable to issuers identified as being below certain continued listing standards. For example, an issuer of particular securities that receives notification from the Exchange that it is below the continued listing criteria for such securities must publicly announce receipt of such notification and the policies and standards upon which the determination is based. 3 3 *See* Section 1009(j) of the Amex *Company Guide.* The Exchange also proposes to add language to Section 1003(g) to clarify the applicability of certain continued listing standards relating to components of units that have separated. When units in good standing begin to separate into their component securities, the remaining units that are still intact and the components of those units which have separated may all be separately listed and continue to trade, provided that they meet the applicable continued listing standards. The proposal specifies that, in determining whether a particular component meets the continued listing distribution standards set forth in Section 1003(b) of the *Company Guide,* the distribution values for units that are intact and freely separable into their component parts and for separately-traded components will be aggregated. For example, if 120,000 shares of common stock are publicly held after their separation from their units, and 210,000 intact and freely separable units are publicly held, the common stock will be credited with having 330,000 shares publicly held, enabling it to satisfy one of the distribution standards for common stock, which requires at least 200,000 shares of common stock to be publicly held. 4 If the units cease to exist or are no longer freely separable and/or listed on the Exchange, the separately-traded components will still be required to meet their applicable continued listing standards, but the distribution values will not be aggregated. 5 4 *See* Section 1003(b)(i)(A) of the Amex *Company Guide.* 5 *See* proposed Section 1003(g) of the Amex *Company Guide.* The Commission notes that under proposed Section 1003(g), if in the above example the units are no longer freely separable into common stock, there would be no aggregation of units with the common stock for purposes of evaluating whether the units and comment stock meet the continued listing standards. The Exchange will also consider suspending trading in, or removing from listing, an individual component or unit if the distribution values of such component or unit become so reduced as to make continued listing inadvisable and despite the fact that the aggregated distribution values satisfy the continued listing distribution standards. In its review of the advisability of the continued listing of an individual component or unit under such circumstances, the Exchange proposes to take into account the trading characteristics of the component or unit and whether it would be in the public interest for trading in such component or unit to continue. The Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance the transparency of its continued listing standards. The Exchange also proposes to make technical revisions to Sections 1003(a), (c),

(d)and

(f)in order to consistently use the term “issuer” as opposed to “company.” 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 7 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. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 7 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 would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange did not receive any written 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 Amex consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or

(i)Section 341 of the Amex Company Guide to clarify the circumstances under which a listed issuer will be deemed to have engaged in a reverse merger thereby requiring the post-transaction entity to satisfy the initial listing standards and the process a listed issuer must follow when applying for initial listing in connection with a reverse merger and

(ii)Section 713 of the Amex Company Guide to require shareholder approval in connection with the issuance or potential issuance of additional listed securities that will result in a change of control of a listed issuer. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com* , the Office of the Secretary, the Amex and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 341 of the Amex Company Guide currently provides that if an issuer listed on the Amex engages in any plan of acquisition, merger or consolidation, the net effect of which is that the listed issuer is acquired by an unlisted entity, even if the listed issuer is the nominal survivor, the post-transaction entity is required to satisfy the initial listing standards. Such transactions are typically referred to as “Reverse Mergers.” Because the issuer resulting from a Reverse Merger is essentially a different entity from the listed issuer, Section 341 does not permit the post-transaction entity to remain listed on the Amex unless it qualifies as a new listing. This prohibition is intended to prevent “back door listings” whereby an unqualified entity attempts to obtain an Amex listing. Both the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) 4 and Nasdaq 5 have comparable provisions. 4 Section 703.08(E) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. 5 Nasdaq Rule 4340(a). Many Reverse Mergers are entered into for bona fide business reasons, however, in some cases listed issuers that are not in compliance with the continued listing standards, and face potential delisting, attempt to enter into Reverse Mergers with private entities in order to retain their Amex listing. In other situations, a listed issuer may be in compliance with the continued listing standards but the post-transaction entity would not satisfy the initial listing standards. In both of these cases, a change of control occurs but the listed issuer attempts to structure the transaction so that it will not be deemed a Reverse Merger under the current rule. The Exchange proposes amending Section 341 to provide greater clarity and transparency as to

(i)what constitutes a Reverse Merger,

(ii)the factors the Exchange will consider in determining whether a transaction or series of transactions constitute(s) a Reverse Merger,

(iii)the consequences of entering into a Reverse Merger and

(iv)the process a listed issuer must follow in connection with a Reverse Merger. The proposed rule change will provide that, in addition to meeting the initial listing standards, a listed company entering into a Reverse Merger will need to obtain shareholder approval in accordance with Section 713 in order to issue additional listed securities in connection with such Reverse Merger. In addition, while the determination of whether a Reverse Merger has occurred or will occur is to some degree subjective, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 341 to more clearly delineate the factors that will be considered by the Exchange in its analysis of a transaction. 6 6 The Exchange's proposed Section 341 states that a “Reverse Merger” is: “any plan of acquisition, merger or consolidation whereby a listed company combines with, or into, a company not listed on the Exchange, resulting in a change of control of the listed company and potentially allowing such unlisted company to obtain an Exchange listing. In determining whether a change of control constitutes a Reverse Merger, the Exchange will consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, changes in the management, board of directors, voting power, ownership, and financial structure of the listed company. The Exchange will also consider the nature of the businesses and the relative size of both the listed and the unlisted companies.” *See* proposed Section 341 of the Amex Company Guide. With regards to the process to be followed by listed issuers in connection with Reverse Mergers, Section 341 currently recommends that listed issuers submit any proposed plan which could constitute a Reverse Merger to the Exchange for an informal opinion prior to the plan's promulgation. The intent of such provision is to permit Exchange staff to review the proposed transaction in order to determine if it constitutes a Reverse Merger and, in the case of a Reverse Merger, to review the post-transaction entity in order to confirm that it will meet initial listing standards. The Exchange proposes to make such process more transparent by requiring a listed issuer to submit an initial listing application with sufficient time to permit the Exchange to complete its review of the post-transaction entity and providing that delisting proceedings will be commenced if such initial listing application has not been approved prior to consummation of the Reverse Merger. The Commission approved a similar rule change filed by Nasdaq. 7 7 *See supra* note 3. In association with the proposed changes to Section 341, the Exchange also proposes to amend Section 713. Section 713 currently requires shareholder approval as a prerequisite to Exchange approval of applications to list additional shares issued in connection with a transaction (other than a public offering) which would involve the application of the initial listing standards as described in Section 341. The Exchange proposes revising Section 713 to require shareholder approval as a prerequisite to Exchange approval of additional listing applications when the issuance or potential issuance of additional securities will result in a change of control of a listed issuer, regardless of whether such change of control also constitutes a Reverse Merger. Additionally, the Exchange proposes changes to Sections 341 and 713 to clarify the relationship between their respective requirements. Both NYSE 8 and Nasdaq 9 require shareholder approval under such circumstances and the Exchange believes it is necessary and appropriate to require listed issuers to obtain shareholder approval of any issuance or potential issuance of additional listed securities that will result in a change of control. The proposed rule change will provide investors of listed issuers with more input and participation with respect to such decisions. 8 Section 312.03(d) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. 9 Nasdaq Rule 4350(i)(1)(B). 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will promote greater uniformity with the listing standards of other markets. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve 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 *rulecomments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2006-99 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-2006-99. 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 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-2006-99 and should be submitted on or before April 12, 2007. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5206 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55480; File No. SR-BSE-2006-46] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules To Require Securities Become Eligible for a Direct Registration System March 15, 2007. I. Introduction On October 26, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-BSE-2006-46 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on December 7, 2006. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 3 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54832 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71000 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-BSE-2006-46]. 3 Concurrent with this order, the Commission is approving similar rule changes submitted by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54834 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71013 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-Phlx-2006-69] and 54833 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71004 (December 7, 2006)[File No. SR-CHX-2006-33]. The Commission has also granted approval to similar rule changes submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”). Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54289 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47278 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 54290 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47262 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]; 54288 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47276 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-08]; 54410 (September 7, 2006), 71 FR 54316 (September 14, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE Arca-2006-31]. II. Description The Direct Registration System (“DRS”) allows an investor to establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position on the books of the issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer agent and the broker-dealer of her choice through a facility currently administered by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). 4 DRS, therefore, enables an investor to have securities registered in her name on the books of the issuer without having a securities certificate issued to her and to electronically transfer her securities to her broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction without the risk, expenses, and delays associated with the use of securities certificates. 4 Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a DRS is DTC. For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862 (September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No. SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile Modification System). Investors holding their securities in DRS retain the rights associated with securities certificates, including such rights as control of ownership and voting rights, without having the responsibility of holding and safeguarding securities certificates. In addition, in corporate actions such as reverse stock splits and mergers, cancellation of old shares and issuance of new shares are handled electronically with no securities certificates to be returned to or received from the transfer agent. BSE believes that DRS will be an important step in reducing the use of securities certificates, which should facilitate transfers in securities and could eventually lead to lower risks and costs for issuers and investors. 5 To encourage the use of DRS, the BSE will require that all listed securities be eligible to participate in DRS. As approved, BSE would add Section 3 to Chapter XXVII that will require any security initially listing on BSE on or after January 1, 2007, to be eligible for a DRS that is operated by a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act. This requirement, however, would not extend to

(i)securities of companies which already have securities listed on BSE,

(ii)securities of companies which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another securities exchange in the U.S., or

(iii)non-equity securities which are book-entry only. Under the rule, on and after January 1, 2008, all securities listed on BSE, other than non-equity securities which are book-entry only, must be eligible for a DRS that is operated by a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act. 6 While this rule change would require that securities be DRS eligible, it would not mandate the elimination of securities certificates and, subject to applicable state law and the company's governing documents, an investor could still elect to receive a securities certificate if an issuer elects to issue securities certificates. 5 In that regard, in March 2004 the Commission published a concept release that discussed, among other things, whether more should be done to reduce the use of physical securities certificates by individual investors. The Commission noted that the use of physical certificates increases the costs and risks of clearing and settling securities transactions, costs that most often are ultimately borne by investors. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 8398 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004). Issuers may save money by not having to print or process physical certificates but may incur other ongoing expenses to maintain book-entry records, such as mailing statements to shareholders. 6 The exact text of the BSE's proposed rule change is set forth in its filing, which can be found at *http://www.bostonstock.com/legal/pending_rule_filings.html.* In order for a security to be eligible for the only DRS in operation today, the issuer is required to use a transfer agent that meets certain insurance and connectivity requirements. 7 As a result, some transfer agents may have to make changes to comply with their requirements. In addition, certain issuers may have to make amendments to their governing documents, such as their by-laws or corporate charters, to be eligible to issue book-entry positions. To allow sufficient time for these changes, BSE proposed implementing the proposed requirement on January 1, 2008, for issuers with securities already listed on BSE or another listed marketplace when the rule is approved. Companies listing for the first time would have greater flexibility to adopt any required changes and therefore the proposed requirement would be applicable to new listings beginning January 1, 2007. 7 DTC's rules require that a transfer agent (including an issuer acting as its own transfer agent) acting for a company issuing securities in DRS must be a DRS Limited Participant. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15]. III. Discussion Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 8 For the reasons described below, the Commission finds that BSE's rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The use of securities certificates has long been identified as an inefficient and risk-laden mechanism by which to hold and transfer ownership. 9 Because securities certificates require manual processing, their use can result in significant delays and expenses in processing securities transactions and presents the risk of certificates being lost or stolen. Many of these costs and risks are ultimately borne by investors. 10 Congress has recognized the problems and dangers that the use of certificates presents to the safe and efficient operation of the U.S. clearance and settlement system and has given the Commission the responsibility and the authority to address these issues. 11 9 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04] (Securities Transaction Settlement Concept Release). 10 *Id.* 11 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A). Congress expressly envisioned the Commission's authority to extend to all aspects of the securities handling process of securities transactions within the United States, including activities by clearing agencies, depositories, corporate issuers, and transfer agents. *See* S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. at 55 (1975). Consistent with its Congressional directives and in its efforts to improve efficiencies and decrease risks associated with processing securities transactions, the Commission has long advocated a reduction in the use of certificates in the trading environment by immobilization or dematerialization of securities and has encouraged the use of alternatives to holding securities in certificated form. Among other things, the Commission has approved the rule filings of self-regulatory organizations that require their members to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities 12 and that require any security listed for trading must be depository eligible if possible. 13 More recently the Commission has approved the implementation and expansion of DRS. 14 12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993), 58 FR 33679 (June 18, 1993) (order approving rules requiring members, member organizations, and affiliated members of the New York Stock Exchange, National Association of Securities Dealers, American Stock Exchange, Midwest Stock Exchange, Boston Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, and Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities with another financial intermediary). 13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35798 (June 1, 1995), 60 FR 30909 (June 12, 1995), [File Nos. SR-Amex-95-17; SR-BSE-95-09; SR-CHX-95-12; SR-NASD-95-24; SR-NYSE-95-19; SR-PSE-95-14; SR-Phlx-95-34] (order approving rules setting forth depository eligibility requirements for issuers seeking to have their shares listed on the exchange). 14 In 1996, the NYSE modified its listing criteria to permit listed companies to issue securities in book-entry form provided that the issue is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37937 (November 8, 1996), 61 FR 58728 (November 18, 1996), [File No. SR-NYSE-96-29]. Similarly, the NASD modified its rule to require that if an issuer establishes a direct registration program, it must participate in an electronic link with a securities depository in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the issue. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39369 (November 26, 1997), 62 FR 64034 (December 3, 1997), [File No. SR-97-51]. On July 30, 2002, the Commission approved a rule change proposed by the NYSE to amend NYSE Section 501.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to allow a listed company to issue securities in a dematerialized or completely immobilized form and therefore not send stock certificates to record holders provided the company's stock is issued pursuant to a dividend reinvestment program or a stock purchase plan or is included in a DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46282 (July 30, 2002), 67 FR 50972 (August 6, 2002), [File No. SR-NYSE-2001-33]. While the U.S. markets have made great progress in immobilization and dematerialization for institutional and broker-to-broker transactions, many industry representatives believe that the small percentage of securities held in certificated form (held mostly by retail investors) impose unnecessary risk and disproportionately large expense to the industry and to investors. In an attempt to help address this issue, BSE's rule change, along with those of the NYSE, Amex, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, Phlx, and CHX, should help expand the use of DRS. As a result, risks, costs, and processing inefficiencies associated with the use of securities certificates should be reduced, and impediments to the perfection of the national market system should be removed. Additionally, those investors holding securities in listed securities certificates covered by the rule change that decide to hold their securities in DRS should realize the benefits of more accurate, quicker, and more cost-efficient transfers; faster distribution of sale proceeds; reduced number of lost or stolen certificates and a reduction in the associated certificate replacement costs; and consistency of owning in book-entry across asset classes. The Commission realizes that some issuers and transfer agents may bear expenses related to complying with the rule change. In order to make an issue DRS-eligible, issuers of listed companies must have a transfer agent which is a DRS Limited Participants and may need to amend their corporate governing documents to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. The Commission believes, however, that the long-term benefits of increased efficiencies and reduced costs and risks afforded by DRS outweigh the costs that some issuers and transfer agents may incur. Furthermore, the time frames built into the proposal should allow issuers and their transfer agents sufficient time to make any necessary changes to comply with the rule change. While the rule change should significantly reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates, it will not eliminate the ability of investors to obtain securities certificates provided the issuer has chosen to issue certificates. Such investors can continue to contact the issuer's transfer agent, either directly or through their broker-dealer, to obtain a securities certificate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with BSE's obligation under Section 6(b) of the Act to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 15 15 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on the efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). V. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BSE-2006-46) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5190 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55481; File No. SR-CHX-2006-33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules To Require Listed Companies To Make Securities Eligible for the Direct Registration System March 15, 2007. I. Introduction On October 30, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-CHX-2006-33 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** ; on December 7, 2006. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 3 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54833 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71004 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-CHX-2006-33]. 3 Concurrent with this order, the Commission is approving similar rule changes submitted by the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54832 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71000 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-BSE-2006-46] and 54834 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71013 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-Phlx-2006-69]. The Commission has also granted approval to similar rule changes submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”). Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54289 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47278 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 54290 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47262 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]; 54288 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47276 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-08]; 54410 (September 7, 2006), 71 FR 54316 (September 14, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE Arca-2006-31]. II. Description The Direct Registration System (“DRS”) allows an investor to establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position on the books of the issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer agent and the broker-dealer of her choice through a facility currently administered by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). 4 DRS, therefore, enables an investor to have securities registered in her name on the books of the issuer without having a securities certificate issued to her and to electronically transfer her securities to her broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction without the risk, expenses, and delays associated with the use of securities certificates. 4 Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a DRS is DTC. For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862 (September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No. SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile Modification System). Investors holding their securities in DRS retain the rights associated with securities certificates, including such rights as control of ownership and voting rights, without having the responsibility of holding and safeguarding securities certificates. In addition, in corporate actions such as reverse stock splits and mergers, cancellation of old shares and issuance of new shares are handled electronically with no securities certificates to be returned to or received from the transfer agent. To reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates to and reduce the risks, costs, and delays associated with the physical processing of securities certificates, the CHX is amending its listing standards by adding paragraph

(h)to Rule 1 5 that would require certain issuers to make their securities eligible for DRS. As amended, the new rule would require that any security initially listing on CHX on or after January 1, 2007, must be eligible for a DRS that is operated by a securities depository. 6 This requirement, however, would not extend to i) securities of companies which already have securities listed on CHX, ii) securities of companies which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another national securities exchange, iii) derivative products, or iv) securities (other than stocks) which are book-entry only. Under the rule, on and after January 1, 2008, all securities listed on CHX must be eligible for a DRS that is operated by a securities depository. 7 5 The exact text of the CHX proposed rule change is set forth in its filing, which can be found at *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm* . 6 Under the proposed rule, a “securities depository” would mean a securities depository registered as a clearing agency under Section 17A(b)(2) of the Act. 7 Securities (other than stock) that are book-entry-only and derivative products would continue to be excluded from the DRS requirement. CHX understands that issuers and transfer agents may incur initial costs when making an issue DRS-eligible. As an initial matter, the issuer must have a transfer agent that is a DRS Limited Participant. 8 Transfer agents will need to meet certain DTC criteria, such as insurance and connectivity requirements in order to become DRS Limited Participants and an issuer's corporate documents, such as its bylaws or corporate charters, may need to be amended to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. CHX believes that the proposed deadlines as set forth above would allow issuers and transfer agents an appropriate amount of time to meet applicable requirements. 8 DTC's rules require that a transfer agent (including an issuer acting as its own transfer agent) acting for a company issuing securities in DRS must be a DRS Limited Participant. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15]. III. Discussion Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 9 For the reasons described below, the Commission finds that CHX's rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The use of securities certificates has long been identified as an inefficient and risk-laden mechanism by which to hold and transfer ownership. 10 Because securities certificates require manual processing, their use can result in significant delays and expenses in processing securities transactions and presents the risk of certificates being lost or stolen. Many of these costs and risks are ultimately borne by investors. 11 Congress has recognized the problems and dangers that the use of certificates presents to the safe and efficient operation of the U.S. clearance and settlement system and has given the Commission the responsibility and the authority to address these issues. 12 10 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04] (Securities Transaction Settlement Concept Release). 11 *Id.* 12 5 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A). Congress expressly envisioned the Commission's authority to extend to all aspects of the securities handling process of securities transactions within the United States, including activities by clearing agencies, depositories, corporate issuers, and transfer agents. *See* S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. at 55 (1975). Consistent with its Congressional directives and in its efforts to improve efficiencies and decrease risks associated with processing securities transactions, the Commission has long advocated a reduction in the use of certificates in the trading environment by immobilization or dematerialization of securities and has encouraged the use of alternatives to holding securities in certificated form. Among other things, the Commission has approved the rule filings of self-regulatory organizations that require their members to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities 13 and that require any security listed for trading must be depository eligible if possible. 14 More recently the Commission has approved the implementation and expansion of DRS. 15 13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993), 58 FR 33679 (June 18, 1993) (order approving rules requiring members, member organizations, and affiliated members of the New York Stock Exchange, National Association of Securities Dealers, American Stock Exchange, Midwest Stock Exchange, Boston Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, and Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities with another financial intermediary). 14 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35798 (June 1, 1995), 60 FR 30909 (June 12, 1995), [File Nos. SR-Amex-95-17; SR-BSE-95-09; SR-CHX-95-12; SR-NASD-95-24; SR-NYSE-95-19; SR-PSE-95-14; SR-Phlx-95-34] (order approving rules setting forth depository eligibility requirements for issuers seeking to have their shares listed on the exchange). 15 In 1996, the NYSE modified its listing criteria to permit listed companies to issue securities in book-entry form provided that the issue is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37937 (November 8, 1996), 61 FR 58728 (November 18, 1996), [File No. SR-NYSE-96-29]. Similarly, the NASD modified its rule to require that if an issuer establishes a direct registration program, it must participate in an electronic link with a securities depository in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the issue. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39369 (November 26, 1997), 62 FR 64034 (December 3, 1997), [File No. SR-97-51]. On July 30, 2002, the Commission approved a rule change proposed by the NYSE to amend NYSE Section 501.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to allow a listed company to issue securities in a dematerialized or completely immobilized form and therefore not send stock certificates to record holders provided the company's stock is issued pursuant to a dividend reinvestment program or a stock purchase plan or is included in a DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46282 (July 30, 2002), 67 FR 50972 (August 6, 2002), [File No. SR-NYSE-2001-33]. While the U.S. markets have made great progress in immobilization and dematerialization for institutional and broker-to-broker transactions, many industry representatives believe that the small percentage of securities held in certificated form (held mostly by retail investors) impose unnecessary risk and disproportionately large expense to the industry and to investors. In an attempt to help address this issue, CHX's rule change, along with those of the NYSE, Amex, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, BSE, and Phlx, should help expand the use of DRS. As a result, risks, costs, and processing inefficiencies associated with the use of securities certificates should be reduced, and impediments to the perfection of the national market system should be removed. Additionally, those investors holding securities in listed securities certificates covered by the rule change that decide to hold their securities in DRS should realize the benefits of more accurate, quicker, and more cost-efficient transfers; faster distribution of sale proceeds; reduced number of lost or stolen certificates and a reduction in the associated certificate replacement costs; and consistency of owning in book-entry across asset classes. The Commission realizes that some issuers and transfer agents may bear expenses related to complying with the rule change. In order to make an issue DRS-eligible, issuers of listed companies must have a transfer agent which is a DRS Limited Participants and may need to amend their corporate governing documents to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. The Commission believes, however, that the long-term benefits of increased efficiencies and reduced costs and risks afforded by DRS outweigh the costs that some issuers and transfer agents may incur. Furthermore, the time frames built into the proposal should allow issuers and their transfer agents sufficient time to make any necessary changes to comply with the rule change. While the rule change should significantly reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates, it will not eliminate the ability of investors to obtain securities certificates provided the issuer has chosen to issue certificates. Such investors can continue to contact the issuer's transfer agent, either directly or through their broker-dealer, to obtain a securities certificate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with CHX's obligation under Section 6(b) of the Act to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 16 16 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on the efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CHX-2006-33) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5191 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55482; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-69] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules Relating to the Direct Registration System March 15, 2007. I. Introduction On October 31, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and on November 14, 2006, amended proposed rule change SR-Phlx-2006-69 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on December 7, 2006. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 3 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54834 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71013 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-Phlx-2006-69]. 3 Concurrent with this order, the Commission is approving similar rule changes submitted by the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54832 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71000 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-BSE-2006-46] and 54833 (November 29, 2006), 71 FR 71004 (December 7, 2006) [File No. SR-CHX-2006-33]. The Commission has also granted approval to similar rule changes submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”). Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54289 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47278 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 54290 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47262 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]; 54288 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47276 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-08]; 54410 (September 7, 2006), 71 FR 54316 (September 14, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE Arca-2006-31]. II. Description The Direct Registration System (“DRS”) allows an investor to establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position on the books of the issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer agent and the broker-dealer of her choice through a facility currently administered by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). 4 DRS, therefore, enables an investor to have securities registered in her name on the books of the issuer without having a securities certificate issued to her and to electronically transfer her securities to her broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction without the risk, expenses, and delays associated with the use of securities certificates. 4 Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a DRS is DTC. For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862 (September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No. SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile Modification System). Investors holding their securities in DRS retain the rights associated with securities certificates, including such rights as control of ownership and voting rights, without having the responsibility of holding and safeguarding securities certificates. In addition, in corporate actions such as reverse stock splits and mergers, cancellation of old shares and issuance of new shares are handled electronically with no securities certificates to be returned to or received from the transfer agent. In order to reduce the risks, costs, and delays associated with the use of securities certificates, new Phlx Rule 868 will require that certain securities be eligible for DRS. 5 Rule 868 will require that on or after January 1, 2007, all securities initially listing on Phlx must be eligible for a DRS operated by a securities depository that is a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act (“securities depository”). This provision will not extend to

(i)Securities of companies which already have securities listed on Phlx;

(ii)securities of companies which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another national securities exchange;

(iii)derivative products, 6 or

(iv)securities (other than stocks) which are book-entry-only. 5 The text of Phlx Rule 868 is set forth in its filing, which can be found at *http://www.phlx.com/exchange/rulefilngs/2006/S-2006-69.pdf* . 6 For purposes of proposed Rule 868, the term “derivative products” means standardized options issued by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) or other securities that are issued by OCC or another limited purpose entity or trust and that are based solely on the performance of an index or portfolio of other publicly traded securities. The term “derivative product” does not include warrants of any type or closed-end management investment companies. Rule 868 will also require that on or after January 1, 2008, all securities listed on the Phlx must be eligible for a DRS operated by a securities depository. This provision will not extend to derivative products or securities (other than stocks) that are book-entry-only. Issuers and their transfer agents may incur initial costs when making an issue DRS-eligible as required by this rule change. In order to make a security DRS-eligible, the issuer must have a transfer agent which is a DRS Limited Participant at DTC. 7 Transfer agents will need to meet certain DTC criteria, such as insurance and connectivity requirements, in order to become a DRS Limited Participant. Further, issuers may need to amend their corporate documents, such as their by-laws or charter, in order to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. Phlx believes that the deadlines for DRS eligibility coupled with instructive communication by Phlx to issuers, allows issuers sufficient time to make the necessary changes to comply with the rule. 7 DTC's rules require that a transfer agent (including an issuer acting as its own transfer agent) acting for a company issuing securities in DRS must be a DRS Limited Participant. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15]. III. Discussion Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 8 For the reasons described below, the Commission finds that Phlx's rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The use of securities certificates has long been identified as an inefficient and risk-laden mechanism by which to hold and transfer ownership. 9 Because securities certificates require manual processing, their use can result in significant delays and expenses in processing securities transactions and presents the risk of certificates being lost or stolen. Many of these costs and risks are ultimately borne by investors. 10 Congress has recognized the problems and dangers that the use of certificates presents to the safe and efficient operation of the U.S. clearance and settlement system and has given the Commission the responsibility and the authority to address these issues. 11 9 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04] (Securities Transaction Settlement Concept Release). 10 *Id.* 11 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A). Congress expressly envisioned the Commission's authority to extend to all aspects of the securities handling process of securities transactions within the United States, including activities by clearing agencies, depositories, corporate issuers, and transfer agents. *See* S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. at 55 (1975). Consistent with its Congressional directives and in its efforts to improve efficiencies and decrease risks associated with processing securities transactions, the Commission has long advocated a reduction in the use of certificates in the trading environment by immobilization or dematerialization of securities and has encouraged the use of alternatives to holding securities in certificated form. Among other things, the Commission has approved the rule filings of self-regulatory organizations that require their members to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities 12 and that require any security listed for trading must be depository eligible if possible. 13 More recently the Commission has approved the implementation and expansion of DRS. 14 12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993), 58 FR 33679 (June 18, 1993) (order approving rules requiring members, member organizations, and affiliated members of the New York Stock Exchange, National Association of Securities Dealers, American Stock Exchange, Midwest Stock Exchange, Boston Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, and Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities with another financial intermediary). 13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35798 (June 1, 1995), 60 FR 30909 (June 12, 1995), [File Nos. SR-Amex-95-17; SR-BSE-95-09; SR-CHX-95-12; SR-NASD-95-24; SR-NYSE-95-19; SR- PSE-95-14; SR-Phlx-95-34] (order approving rules setting forth depository eligibility requirements for issuers seeking to have their shares listed on the exchange). 14 In 1996, the NYSE modified its listing criteria to permit listed companies to issue securities in book-entry form provided that the issue is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37937 (November 8, 1996), 61 FR 58728 (November 18, 1996), [File No. SR-NYSE-96-29]. Similarly, the NASD modified its rule to require that if an issuer establishes a direct registration program, it must participate in an electronic link with a securities depository in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the issue. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39369 (November 26, 1997), 62 FR 64034 (December 3, 1997), [File No. SR-97-51]. On July 30, 2002, the Commission approved a rule change proposed by the NYSE to amend NYSE Section 501.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to allow a listed company to issue securities in a dematerialized or completely immobilized form and therefore not send stock certificates to record holders provided the company's stock is issued pursuant to a dividend reinvestment program or a stock purchase plan or is included in a DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46282 (July 30, 2002), 67 FR 50972 (August 6, 2002), [File No. SR-NYSE-2001-33]. While the U.S. markets have made great progress in immobilization and dematerialization for institutional and broker-to-broker transactions, many industry representatives believe that the small percentage of securities held in certificated form (held mostly by retail investors) impose unnecessary risk and disproportionately large expense to the industry and to investors. In an attempt to help address this issue, Phlx's rule change, along with those of the NYSE, Amex, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, BSE, and CHX, should help expand the use of DRS. As a result, risks, costs, and processing inefficiencies associated with the use of securities certificates should be reduced, and impediments to the perfection of the national market system should be removed. Additionally, those investors holding securities in listed securities certificates covered by the rule change that decide to hold their securities in DRS should realize the benefits of more accurate, quicker, and more cost-efficient transfers; faster distribution of sale proceeds; reduced number of lost or stolen certificates and a reduction in the associated certificate replacement costs; and consistency of owning in book-entry across asset classes. The Commission realizes that some issuers and transfer agents may bear expenses related to complying with the rule change. In order to make an issue DRS-eligible, issuers of listed companies must have a transfer agent which is a DRS Limited Participants and may need to amend their corporate governing documents to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. The Commission believes, however, that the long-term benefits of increased efficiencies and reduced costs and risks afforded by DRS outweigh the costs that some issuers and transfer agents may incur. Furthermore, the time frames built into the proposal should allow issuers and their transfer agents sufficient time to make any necessary changes to comply with the rule change. While the rule change should significantly reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates, it will not eliminate the ability of investors to obtain securities certificates provided the issuer has chosen to issue certificates. Such investors can continue to contact the issuer's transfer agent, either directly or through their broker-dealer, to obtain a securities certificate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with Phlx's obligation under Section 6(b) of the Act to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest. 15 15 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on the efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). V. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2006-69) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5189 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Buffalo District Advisory Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Management Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration Buffalo District Advisory Council located in the geographical area of Buffalo, New York, will hold a public Federal advisory meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, starting at 10 a.m. EST. The meeting will take place at the SBA Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center, located at 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, 5th Floor, Buffalo, New York. *The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics:*

(1)FY 2007 Mid-year report;

(2)SBA Program updates;

(3)SBA's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan (MREIDL);

(4)Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center Tour and Update;

(5)District Small Business Week;

(6)District SBA Business Matchmaking, Awards Luncheon & Expo;

(7)Roundtable Discussion on Small Business Issues. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Franklin J. Sciortino, District Director, Buffalo District Office, in writing by letter or fax no later than Friday, March 30, 2007, in order to be put on the agenda. Franklin J. Sciortino, District Director, Buffalo District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, Niagara Center, 540 Niagara Center, 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; telephone

(716)551-4301 or fax

(716)551-4418. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5222 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5727] Formation of the United States Delegation to the World Radiocommunication Conference: Request for Expressions of Interest in Being on the United States Delegation *Summary:* The International Telecommunication Union

(ITU)World Radiocommunication Conference

(WRC)will take place from October 22-November 16, 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. As part of the preparations for the formation of the United States delegation to the World Radiocommunication Conference, the Department of State is requesting expressions of interest in being on this delegation. All delegation members must be United States citizens. Expressions of interest and a description of what company or organization the interested person represents and his/her area of expertise should be sent to Anne Jillson, International Communications and Information Policy, Department of State. Her e-mail address is *jillsonad@state.gov* , her fax number is 202 647-5957, and her phone number is 202 647-5205. Expressions of interest should be received no later than April 10, 2007. Dated: March 15, 2007. Anne D. Jillson, Foreign Affairs Officer, International Communications and Information Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-5253 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5728] Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting The Shipping Coordinating Committee

(SHC)will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2007, in Room 6103 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 11th session of the International Maritime Organization's Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases

(BLG)to be held at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre, 80 Vincent Square, London, England from April 16th to April 20th, 2007. The primary matters to be considered include: —Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and preparation of consequential amendments —Development of guidelines for uniform implementation of the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention —Review of MARPOL Annex VI and the NO <sup>X</sup> Technical Code —Development of provisions for gas-fuelled ships —Amendments to MARPOL Annex I for the prevention of marine pollution during oil transfer operations between ships at sea —Oil tagging systems —Guidelines on other technological methods verifiable or enforceable to limit SO <sup>x</sup> emissions —Application of requirements for the carriage of bio-fuels and bio-fuel blends —Consideration of IACS unified interpretations —Casualty analysis —Work program and agenda for BLG 12 Hard copies of documents associated with the 11th session of BLG will be available at this meeting. To request further copies of documents please write to the address provided below. Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing to Mr. Thomas Felleisen, Commandant (CG-3PSO-3), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Room 1214, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling

(202)372-1424. Dated: 16 March 2007. Michael E. Tousley, Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-5252 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5726] Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Permanent Waiver of Missile Proliferation Sanctions Against Sectors of Chinese Government Activities AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: A determination has been made to waive permanently the import sanction against certain activities of the Chinese government that was announced on September 19, 2003, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Durham, Office of Missile Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4931). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A determination was made on September 13, 2006, pursuant to section 73(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)), that it was essential to the national security of the United States to waive for an additional six months the import sanction described in Section 73(a)(2)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(C)) against the activities of the Chinese government described in section 74(a)(8)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c(a)(8)(B))—activities of the Chinese government relating to the development or production of any missile equipment or technology and activities of the Chinese government affecting the development or production of electronics, space systems or equipment, and military aircraft (see **Federal Register** Vol. 68, no. 182, Friday, Sept. 19, 2003). This action was effective on September 18, 2006. On March 12, 2007, a determination was made pursuant to section 73(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)) that it is essential to the national security of the United States to waive permanently the sanctions, effective from the date of expiration of the previous waiver (March 18, 2007). These measures shall be implemented by the responsible agencies as provided in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993. Dated: March 14, 2007. John C. Rood, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-5254 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2007-23639] Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport Improvement Program

(AIP)Sponsor, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement Funds for Fiscal Year 2007; Correction AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing a correction to the Notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2007 (72 FR 10292), Subject: Deadline for Notification to Use the Airport Improvement Program

(AIP)Sponsor, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement Funds for FY 2006. That Notice announced May 1, 2007, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA that it will use its fiscal year 2007 entitlement funds to accomplish projects identified in the Airports Capital Improvement Plan that was formulated in the spring of 2006. This correction changes the fiscal year referenced in the subject from “2006” to “2007”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kendall Ball ( *Kendall.Ball@faa.gov* ), Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-500), Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,

(202)267-7436). Correction In FR Doc. No. FAA-2007-23639 published on March 7, 2007 (72 FR 10292) make the following correction: On Page 10292, in the subject correct “Fiscal Year 2006” to read “Fiscal Year 2007”. Barry L. Molar, Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division. [FR Doc. 07-1391 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

Notice
Notices

3 references not yet in our index

Pub. L. 98-21
17 CFR 240.19
5 USC 78q-1(a)(2)(A)

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning a list of goods for which tariff concessions may be withdrawn and duties may be increased in the event the United States cannot reach agreement with the European Communities (EC) for adequate compensation owed under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules as a result of EU enlargement

Pub. L.Pub. L. 98-21

Cite17 CFR 240.19

Cite5 USC 78q-1(a)(2)(A)

Cites 15 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources